Honble RATHORE, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the judgments passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 18.3.1966, Revenue Appellate Authority dated 30.10.90 and Board of Revenue dated 16.1.95 in appeal and 18.3.98 in revision.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the writ petition filed by Sita Ram defendant, this court held as under—

"That unregistered and unstamped document could be taken into evidence for collateral purposes only. Even if the unregistered and unstamped document which was denied by the petitioner is taken into evidence for collateral purposes, it does not create any title in favour of the defendant in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. A suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument".

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred Section 17 of the Registration Act which says that non-testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create, declare whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property shall be registered.

(4). He also referred Section 41 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 which says that the interest of a khatedar shall be transferable otherwise than by way of sub lease subject to the conditions specified in Sections 42 and 43. Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act says that a sale of immovable property of the value of Rupees one hundred and above can only be made by registered sale deed and under section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document effecting immovable property and required to be registered could be taken as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

(5). He further referred Section 5(54) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which defines trespasser as a person who takes or retains possession of land without authority.

(6). After referring the aforesaid provisions of law, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents occupy the land in dispute as a sub tenant or under document Ex. D-l which does not create any title in the defendant respondents and they are in possession without any authority of law and being trespasser liable to be ejected from the land under section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Even a sub tenancy cannot be for a term exceeding 5 years and if a sub tenant on the expiry of the sub lease continues to be in possession is a trespasser.

(7). The petitioner further submitted that the alleged document Ex.D-l denied by the plaintiff cannot confer any khatedari rights on the defendant Sita Ram, the suit for ejectment was filed on 3.8.64. If the defendant enters on the land in dispute, even on the basis of the alleged document dated 6.6.58 and his authority was withdrawn on 27.7.64 i.e., well within the period of 1.2 years of the cause of action as the defendant became a trespasser both as a sub tenant as well as on the basis of alleged document Ex.D-1.

(8). The petitioner categorically submitted that the alleged Ex.D-1 was not got examined by the hand writing expert and the signatures of the plaintiff Panne Khan was not testified by the hand writing expert specially when the document was denied by the plaintiff.

(9). In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case Nanga vs. Dhanna Lal reported in A.I.R. 1962 (Raj.) 68 = 1961 RLW 653, "Nihal Singh vs. Singhram & Ors. reported in RLR 1989(1) 384 = 1989 (1) RLW 454 wherein this court has held that "unstamped and unregistered document which is required under law to be stamped and registered cannot be admitted in evidence even for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document