Unregistered documents affecting immovable property are inadmissible as evidence under the Registration Act 1908.

JUDGMENT :

1 Though the matter has been listed in the ‘fresh with stay Category’, however, the matter is being heard today itself with the consent of the counsel for both the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(A) The impugned orders dated 04.09.2021 (Ann.6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 06/2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(B) The applications filed by petitioner-plaintiff under O.16 R.6 read with Section 151 of C.P.C in Civil Original Suit No. 6/2014 may kindly be allowed.

(C) Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.08.2013 and Permanent Injunction against respondent-defendant in January 2014 before the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Udaipur wherein it was contended that agricultural land of different khasra numbers was in joint khatedari of petitioner-plaintiff and others. Respondent-Defendant made proposal of purchasing 1/5th share of the petitioner-plaintiff from the land in question by oral conversation and thereafter decided to get registration of the same and the total consideration amount decided was Rupees 2,50,000/-to be paid to the petitioner-plaintiff.

4. Thereafter the respondent-defendant contacted petitioner-plaintiff on 17.08.2013 to remain present before the Registrar office for getting done the registration of the sale deed on 19.08.2013. The petitioner signed the sale deed which was also registered. However the consideration amount was supposed to be paid at the time of registration but the respondent-defendant gave only 1,00,000/-in cash and the rest of the amount was not given to the petitioner. However, the land was sold to One Mangi Lal through agreement dated 30.03.2013 (Annexure-7) with the consideration of Rs 5,00,000/-wherein agreement was executed and the possession was handed over by the petitioner-plaintiff to Mangi Lal.

5. Furthermore Mangi Lal had filed suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.03.2013 before District Judge, Udaipur and the suit was decreed vide judgement and decree dated 13.02.2014 and in compliance of the above mentioned decree the sale deed has been executed by the order of court on 26.10.2015 (Annexure-8) in favour of Mangi Lal.

6. Meanwhile the respondent-defendant got executed the sale deed on 19.08.2013 which was registered on 22.08.2013 (Annexure-11) in which wrong khasra number 1839 has been mentioned in place of 1838 and the cheque mentioned in the registered sale deed has not been handed over to the petitioner-plaintiff.

7. After execution of the sale deed dated 26.10.2015 in favour of Mangi Lal, the name of Mangilal was entered in the revenue record through mutation dated 04.05.2016. (Annexure-9). Moreover, the petitioner submitted an application before Gram Panchayat Lakadwas stating therein that the respondent-defendant Vala Ram got registered the land in his favour by committing fraud. Thus the gram panchayat Lakadwas on 31.08.2013 in a meeting held that in respect of khasra No. 1836, 1837 and 1839 measuring 0.7150 hectare the mutation may not be opened in name of the respondent-defendant and also stated that the land in question is currently in possession of Mangi Lal and all the above statements were drawn in a certificate dated 30.12.2013. (Annexure- 10).

8. Furthermore, the petitioner came to know that the Respondent-defendant got registration of the land in question as mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the plaint (Annexure-1) and in the suit the petitioner prayed to cancel the sale deed dated 19.08.2013. The petitioner also lodged an FIR on 04.09.2013 against the respondent-defendant wherein negative final report was passed and however, a protest petition was filed on