Once an unstamped document is admitted, its admissibility cannot be questioned, and the absence of a provision similar to section 36 in the Registration Act creates an irretrievable situation.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff to recall the documents marked as Exs.B1 to B3 and B11 from the evidence of DW1 and PW1, the present civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his enjoyment of the property. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, an unregistered and unstamped release deed dated 13. 1999 was marked on behalf of the defendant through the plaintiff. Exs.B2, B3 and B11, which were only xerox copies, were also marked. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a petition praying to recall the documents marked as Exs.B1 to B3 and B11 from the evidence of DW1 and PW1. It has also been contended by the plaintiff that even before the petition filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant to receive those documents was disposed of by the Trial Court, those documents were exhibited and marked.

3. The defendant resisted the petition on the ground that the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was already allowed by the Trial Court, but, by mistake, the said order was inscribed on the notes paper of the suit. The documents have already been proved in earlier proceedings. Further, the original of Ex.B1 was marked later as Ex.B4. Therefore, it was contended by the defendant that the plaintiff cannot seek for recalling of those documents from the evidence of DW1 and PW1.

4. The Trial Court, having observed that Ex.B1 was marked only through PW1 during the course of cross-examination, found that the question of recalling the document from the evidence part of it does not arise.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the unstamped and unregistered release deed, which requires to be stamped and registered, cannot be marked even for the purpose of establishing collateral transaction, unless the stamp duty and penalty is paid. Therefore, Ex.B1 will have to be recalled from the evidence of PW1. As regards other documents viz., Exs.B2, B3 and B11, he would submit that inasmuch as the originals of those documents were produced, the plaintiff does not press for recalling of Exs.B2, B3 and B11.

6. Referring to section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant would submit that once an unstamped document is admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the proceedings of the suit on the ground that the instrument was not duly stamped. Inasmuch as Ex.B1 was marked through PW1 during cross-examination without any objection emanated from him, the question of recalling the said document in the face of the specific provision found under section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 does not arise.

7. Thedocuments, which are compulsorily registerable, have been adumbrated under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. An instrument, except a non-testamentary instrument, which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs.100/= or upwards, shall be compulsorily registered as per section 17(b) of the Registration Act.

8. Theeffect of non-registration of the document which requires to be registered is dealt with under section 49 of the Registration Act. A document required by section 17 to be registered shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property unless it has been registered as per section 49(c) of the Registration Act. But, as per the proviso found thereunder, an unregistered document may be received as evidence of any collateral transaction which transaction is not required to be effected by registered instrument.

9. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in K.B.SAHA & SONS PRIVATE LIMIT