Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2). By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Rajsamand dated 5th September, 2000 by which the Trial Court held that the document in question Annexures 3 and 4 require neither stamp duty or registration and, therefore, the documents are admissible in evidence.

(3). According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the documents Annexure 3 and 4 are supplementary to each other constituting one document and otherwise also it is clear from the Annexures 3 and 4 that the original Khatedar tenant took the consideration of Rs. 80,000/- from plaintiff for the transfer of surface right of his agricultural land and thereby transferred his all rights in the land in question in favour of the plaintiff.

(4). Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner by these documents, the transferor assigned his all (surface) rights in favour of the transferee after taking consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and, therefore, the documents require stamp duty as required for a deed of conveyance and require registration. Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act prohibits admission of a document, which requires registration, which has not been registered in accordance with law. Section 35 is more rigid provision of law which says that the document, which requires stamp duty and over which stamp duty has not been paid shall not be admitted in evidence `for any purpose.

(5). Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the two judgments of this Court delivered in Nihal Singh vs. Singh Ram & Ors. (1), and Smt. Jamna Bai vs. Tulsi Ram (2), wherein it has been held that in view of the word used in Section 35 (for any purpose), the documents, which are not on proper stamp cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose including for collateral purpose.

(6). Learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objections. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioner was not originally impleaded as party in the suit by the plaintiff-respondent. He was impleaded party respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to raise objection about the admissibility of the document because of the reason that plaintiff filed the suit for mere injunction against the respondent State and Department of the State seeking only relief of injunction. The respondent State and its department have not raised any objection about the admissibility of the document, therefore, the petitioner cannot raise the objection as no relief has been claimed by the respondent- plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant in the suit. It is also submitted that the petitioner is facing a criminal case in relation to the same subject matter and that fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner in his writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact from this Court. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief under extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. further, according to learned Counsel for the respondent, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court delivered in the case of Harakchand vs. State of Rajasthan (3), the writ petition of the petitioner is not maintainable because of the reason that in case the Court decides about admissibility of document then that is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the Full Bench of this Court held that where there is no jurisdictional error, the High Court cannot interfere in the order passed by a subordinate Court even if there is error of law or error of fact in the order.

(7). I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties.

(8). After hearing the arguments of both the learned Counsel and after perusing the documents Annexures 3 and 4 after considering

Click Here to Read the rest of this document