The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compulsory registration of documents affecting property rights under the Registration Act, 1908, and the inadmissibility of such documents as evidence if not registered.

ORDER :

1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Raju, son of Badra Ji (predecessor of the petitioners), filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) before the court of Assistant Collector (SDO), Balotra seeking injunction and declaration of tenancy (khatedari) rights stating that his elder brother, Late Shri Mangla, (predecessor of the private respondents) was having ancestral agriculture land, bearing Khasra No.407 Rakba, ad-measuring 27 bighas and 5 biswas, situated at Village Jasol, District-Barmer. It was further stated that in the revenue records at the time of settlement, though entry in name of Late Shri Mangla was made but both brothers were having 1/2 share each in the suit property. It was thus prayed that declaration for necessary corrections be made in revenue record to the effect that Raju is having 1/2 share in the suit property.

2. In the written statement submitted on behalf of private respondents, it was stated that the suit property was self acquired property of Late Shri Mangla and pursuant thereto, revenue entries were made in his name. It was further stated that the land was in exclusive possession of Late Shri Mangla from the very beginning which is being cultivated and possessed by his legal heirs.

3. The court of Assistant Collector (SDO), Balotra on the basis of the pleadings framed necessary issues and after analysing evidence led by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003 rejected the suit holding that the applicant-Raju has failed to prove that the suit property was inherited by Late Shri Mangla and therefore, he had 1/2 share in the property.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003, first appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 was preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer (for short, ‘RAA, Barmer’). During the pendency of first appeal before RAA, Barmer, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was submitted by the appellant-Raju with a prayer for taking additional document on record: Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985, executed by Late Shri Mangla, stating that the suit property is in joint possession of both the brothers which is being cultivated by them. It was further stated that due to bona fide error at the time of settlement, the entire land had been recorded in the name of Mangla however, since Raju is having 1/2 share in the property, he will be entitled to claim the same and his successors will not raise any objection, if such a demand is made. The RAA, Barmer taking into consideration the additional documentary evidence produced before it allowed the first appeal vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2004, declaring appellant-Raju a tenant (Khatedar), having equal share in the suit property. It was further ordered that necessary entries in this regard may be made in revenue record.

5. The successors of Late Shri Mangla challenged judgment and decree dated 21.01.2004 passed by the RAA, Barmer by way of filing second appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer. In the second appeal filed before the Board of Revenue, the appellants contended that the so called Ikrarnama was never executed by Late Shri Mangla. The aforesaid document is a forged and a manufactured one. It was further contended that the Ikrarnama was neither exhibited nor proved by way of evidence before the RAA, Barmer whilst only photocopy of the same was filed, which is not even admissible in evidence. Lastly, it was urged that the document is unstamped and was compulsorily registrable document as per the provisions stipulated in Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1908’).

6. The Board of Revenue vide its judgment and decree dated 06.12.2017 allowed the second appeal and held that unstamped Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 is compulsorily registrable and in the absence th