Hon'ble TATIA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner's Deed Ex.4 with the title of sale-deed has not been admitted in evidence by the court's order dated 25.4.2007 passed in Civil Original Suit No.35/05. Hence this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

3. In suit which appears to be of composite nature of declaration of easementary right with the claim that the plaintiff purchased the said land to be used for the way of the plaintiff from the defendant, the plaintiff sought to produce the deeds dated 3.9.1977 and 13.3.1982. The objection of the defendant was that the documents were not executed on proper stamps and are not registered and, therefore, cannot be admitted.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the documents in question were produced to show the nature of the use of the land by the plaintiff and not to establish the title to the property. It is submitted that the prayer of the plaintiff was also for declaration that the plaintiff acquired the easementary right over the land in question, therefore, in view of the provision to Section 49 of the Registration Act and in view of the provision to Section 35, the documents cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document