The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, allowing unregistered documents to be admitted as evidence, is limited to specific performance suits and does not extend to suits for declaration, permanent injunction, and cancellation of sale deed.

JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved by order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Civil Suit No.52/2007 (23/2006), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner u/s 33, 35, 37 and 38 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1998’) was dismissed and further being aggrieved by order dated 30.05.2014, whereby the documents exhibit dated 26.07.1971 being unstamped and unregistered, were refused to be marked as exhibits. Hence,the present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed. During course of plaintiff’s evidence, plaintiff filed an application under Section 33, 35, 37 and 38 of the Act for impounding the documents dated 26.07.1971 and also requested for marking the same as exhibits. Vide impugned orders dated 30.05.2014 and 06.10.2015, the said applications were dismissed.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Nitin Jain, counsel representing the petitioner that the learned trial court has committed error by refusing to take on record document dated 26.07.1971 as the same was not duly stamped and registered. Qua the deficit of registration, his submission was that by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1908’), more particularly its proviso, his case is covered under exception, as the document in question pertains to collateral transaction. In support of his claim, he relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram and Ors. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401. He emphasized on para-12 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as under :-

"12. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act."

4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 1908 and admitted the evidence on record, inspite of the fact that the same was neither registered nor adequately stamped. As per him, the ratio of relied upon judgment covers his case and he is entitled to get relief by quashing the impugned order.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents Mr. A.K. Pareek submitted that as per pleading, the document in question dated 26.07.1971 directly pertains to the case and is not a collateral document. He further submitted that the said document will not come under the purview of exception to Section 49 and can not be an admissible piece of evidence. The judgment of S. Kaladevi (supra) relied upon by the petitioner pertains to contract under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, whereas the present matter deals with suit of declaration,