The central legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents, even if not covered by specific consequences of non-registration, are inadmissible in evidence as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned court below whereby the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the Respondents-defendants filed under Order 13 Rules 3, 4 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and held the Sale Deed executed in the year 1884 to be inadmissible in evidence.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant Writ Petition are that the Petitioners-Plaintiffs had filed a suit for Partition and Permanent Injunction with respect to an immovable property situated at Nehru Market, Jhunjhunu. It was averred by the Petitioners-Plaintiffs that the aforementioned property was purchased by them jointly with the predecessors of the parties through Sale Deed executed in the year 1884, for a total sale consideration of Rupees 300/-. The Respondents-defendants denied the execution of the aforementioned Sale Deed and also took a specific objection that being an unregistered and insufficiently stamped document, the Sale Deed in question was not admissible in evidence.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the Respondents-Defendants filed an application under Order 13, Rules 3, 4, and 6 of the CPC stating therein that the Sale Deed which the Petitioners-Plaintiffs stated to have been executed between the predecessors of the parties was not admissible in evidence as the same was unregistered and insufficiently stamped. It was stated by the Respondents-Defendants that the Sale Deed was for a sale consideration of Rupees 300/- and since the value of the property in question was more than Rupees 100/-, it was a compulsorily registrable document in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the Act of 1882').

4. Detailed reply to the said application was filed by the Petitioners-Plaintiffs. It was the case of the Petitioners-Plaintiffs before the learned trial court that the Transfer of Property Act had not come into force in the State of Rajasthan at the relevant point of time. Since the Sale Deed in question was executed in the year 1884 in Jhunjhunu, which was part of the erstwhile Jaipur State and the stamp had been issued by the competent authority of the erstwhile Jaipur State and thus, proper stamp duty was paid. It was further stated by the Petitioners-Plaintiffs in their reply that the provisions of the Indian Registration Act were also not applicable on the sale deed in question since the Registration Act had not come into force in the year 1884.

5. The matter came up for consideration before the learned trial court and vide the impugned order dated 19.11.2019 the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the Respondent-Defendant under Order 13, Rules 3, 4 and 6 of the CPC and held that the Sale Deed in question was not admissible in evidence since the same was unregistered and insufficiently stamped. Being aggrieved of the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned trial court, the instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners-Plaintiffs.

6. Reiterating the grounds and facts urged in the Writ Petition, Mr B.L. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners-Plaintiffs has contended that the trial court erred in allowing the application filed by the Respondents-Defendants. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioners-Plaintiffs that since the Sale-Deed was executed in the year 1884 in Jhunjhunu, which was part of the former Jaipur State and the Act of 1882 had come into force in the State of Rajasthan only in the year 1952 vide a Gazette Notification, the provisions of Section 54 of the Act of 1882 could not be made applicable to the Sale-Deed in question. The learned counsel also contended that the Indian Registration Act was equally inapplicable to the Sale-Deed in question, the same having been enacted in 1908. The learned counsel further contended that the law applicable in the erstwhile Sate of Jaipur at the relevant point of time