Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Satish Kumar Sharma, J.
Gangashankar Dubey v. Smt. Sindhu Bai & Others
Miscellaneous Petition No. 591 of 2021 (Gwalior); Decided on 15.12.2021
(1) Registration Act, 1908 -- Ss. 49 and 17(1)(b) -- Stamp Act, 1899 -- S. 35 -- unregistered document -- admissibility in evidence -- to be adjudged in light of relevant provisions of Registration Act as well as of Stamp Act -- unregistered document which is compulsorily registerable cannot be admitted in evidence except in suit for specific performance of contract or as evidence of any collateral transaction, not required to be effected by registered instrument -- collateral purpose must be 'independent of' or 'divisible from' object and purpose of such document -- cannot be admitted in evidence in name of collateral purpose which would essentially tend to affect right, title and interest of parties for which such document is executed -- unstamped or insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose, including collateral purpose -- such document can be tendered in evidence after payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, subject to admissibility under provisions of Registration Act -- if inadmissible in evidence u/s. 49 of Registration Act, it cannot be admitted in evidence even if it is duly stamped. (2008) 8 SCC 564 and 2009 (3) MPHT 6 (SC) followed. 2012 (3) MPHT 508 referred to. [Para 11]
(2) Registration Act, 1908 -- Ss. 49 and 17(1)(b) -- unregistered relinquishment deed -- admissibility in evidence -- suit for declaration of title over suit property on basis of deed allegedly executed by son of plaintiffs giving up his rights over property in favour of his mother -- document in question is certainly a relinquishment deed -- compulsorily registerable u/s. 17(1)(b) -- as per S. 49, cannot be admitted in evidence to establish right, title and interest of plaintiffs over suit property -- plaintiffs intend to use relinquishment deed to establish their possession over property in name of collateral purpose -- such purpose cannot be termed 'independent of' or 'divisible from' purpose of this document - document in question cannot be admitted in evidence for said collateral purpose. (2019) 6 SCC 409, Miscellaneous Petition No. 3417 of 2018 decided on 3.9.2019, Writ Petition No. 1399 of 2014 decided on 7.8.2018, Writ Petition No. 3835 of 2015 decided on 8.5.2017 and Writ Petition No. 1653 of 2014 decided on 20.8.2015 distinguished. [Paras 12 and 13]
(3) Stamp Act, 1899 -- S. 35 -- Registration Act, 1908 -- Ss. 49 and 17(1)(b) -- unstamped or insufficiently stamped document -- admissibility in evidence -- can be admitted in evidence on taking deficit stamp duty and penalty as adjudicated under Stamp Act -- pre-condition is that such document should be admissible in evidence as per proviso to S. 49 of Registration Act. [Para 14]
¼1½ jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 & /kkjk 49 rFkk 17¼1½¼[k½ & LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & ,l&35 & vjftLVªhÑr nLrkost & lk{; esa xzkg~;rk & jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e ds lkFk gh LVkai vf/kfu;e ds lqlaxr mica/kksa ds Ádk'k esa U;k;fu.khZr dh tkuk gksrh gS & ,slk vjftLVªhÑr nLrkost tks vfuok;Zr% jftLVªhdj.kh; gS] ,slk lafonk ds fofunZ"V ikyu ds fy, okn esa ;k ,sls fdlh lkaikf'oZd laO;ogkj ds lk{; ds :i esa ds flok; ftldk jftLVªhÑr fy[kr }kjk ÁHkkoh fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha] lk{; esa xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk & lkaikf'oZd Á;kstu ,sls nLrkost ds mn~ns'; rFkk Á;kstu ^^ls Lora=** ;k ^^ls foHkkT;** gksuk vko';d & ,sls lkaikf'oZd Á;kstu ds uke ij lk{; esa xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk ftlls lkjr% i{kdkjksa dk og vf/kdkj] gd fgr ÁHkkfor gksus dh laHkkouk gS ftlds fy, og nLrkost fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS & vLVkafir ;k vi;kZIr :i ls LVkafir nLrkost fdlh Hkh Á;kstu ds fy,] ftlesa lkaikf'oZd Á;kstu lfEefyr gS] lk{; esa xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ,slk nLrkost de ik, x, LVkai 'kqYd vkSj 'kkfLr ds lank; ds i'pkr~] jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu xzkg~;rk ds v/;/khu] lk{; esa ÁLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS & jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 49 ds v/khu lk{; esa vxzkg~; gks rks lE;d~ :is.k LVkafir gksus ij Hkh og lk{; esa xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2008½ 8 ,l lh lh 564 rFkk 2009 ¼3½ ,e ih ,p Vh ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA 2012 ¼3½ ,e ih ,p Vh 508 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 11½
¼2½ jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 & /kkjk 49 rFkk 17¼1½¼[k½ & vjftLVªhÑr R;kx foys[k & Lkk{; esa xzkg~;rk & oknhx.k ds iq= }kjk laifRr esa viuk vf/kdkjd viuh ekrk ds i{k esa NksM+us ds fy, vfHkdfFkr :i ls fu"ikfnr foys[k ds vk/kkj ij okn laifRr ij gd dh ?kks"k.kk ds fy, okn & Á'uxr nLrkost fuf'pr :i ls R;kx foys[k gS & /kkjk 17¼1½¼[k½ ds v/khu vfuok;Zr% jftLVªhdj.kh; & /kkjk 49 ds vuqlkj] okn laifRr ij oknhx.k dk vf/kdkj] gd rFkk fgr LFkkfir djus ds fy, lk{; esa xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk & oknhx.k dk vk'k; lkaikf'oZd Á;kstu ds uke ij R;kx foys[k dk mi;ksx laifRr ij viuk dCtk fl) djus ds fy, djus dk & ,slk Á;kstu bl nLrkost ds Á;kstu ^^ls Lora=** ;k ^^ls foHkkT;** ugha dgk tk ldrk & mDr lkaikf'oZd Á;kstu ds fy, Á'uxr nLrkost lk{; esa xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2019½ 6 ,l lh lh 409] Ádh.kZ ;kfpdk Øekad 3417 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 3-9-2019] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1399 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 7-8-2018] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 3855 lu~ 2015 fu.khZr fnukad 8-5-2017 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1653 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 20-8-2015 ÁHksfnrA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13½
¼3½ LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 35 & jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 & /kkjk 49 rFkk 17¼1½¼[k½ & vLVkafir ;k vi;kZIr :i ls LVkafir nLrkost & lk{; esa xzkg~;rk & de ik;k x;k LVkai 'kqYd rFkk LVkai vf/kfu;e ds vèkhu ;Fkk U;k;fu.khZr 'kkfLr ysus ds i'pkr~ lk{; esa xzg.k fd;k tk ldrk gS & iqjksHkkO; 'krZ ;g gS fd ,slk nLrkost jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 49 ds ijarqd ds vuqlkj lk{; esa xzkg~; gksuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 14½
JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) against the order dated 4.10.2018 passed by III Civil Judge Class 2 Ganj Basoda district Vidisha in RCS-A/42/2017 whereby, the prayer of the plaintiffs to exhibit the relinquish deed alleged to have been executed by their son in favour of his mother has been declined.
2. Brief facts leading to this case are that, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title and injunction against their widow daughter in law and Grandchildren (defendants) wherein, during the course of chief examination, they intended to exhibit the relinquish deed, stated to have been executed by their deceased son in favour of his mother. The learned trial Court vide impugned order has declined the prayer on the ground that the document is unregistered whereas, the same is compulsorily registerable and also the same is insufficiently stamped. Being aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs have preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs themselves purchased the suit property in the name of their only son of 19 years of age. After marriage, their son, in the year 2012, executed a document giving up all the rights in the property in favour of his mother. He died in the year 2016 and after his death, defendant No.1 daughter-in-law started claiming rights over the suit property, therefore, the plaintiffs had to bring the present suit for declaration of title and injunction. Though the document in question is unregistered but as per section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter would be referred as to ‘the Act of 1908’) it can be used for collateral purposes. The plaintiffs intend to use the same to establish their possession over the suit land and other rights which may be available to them as per law. It is also trite law that in case of insufficiently stamped document, the Court is obliged to impound the same and on payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, such document should be admitted in evidence. The prayer of the plaintiffs to exhibit the document has been declined in technical and illegal manner, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Thulasidhara and Others v. Narayanappa and Others reported in (2019)6 SCC 409 and by High Court of M.P. in M.P.No.3417 of 2018 (Parimal Singh Sikarwar and Another v. Satish Singh Sikarwar and Others) passed on 3.9.2019, W.P.no.1399 of 2014 (Rodelal v. Laxminarayan) passed on 7.8.2018, W.P.No.3835 of 2015 (Kailash Agrawal v. Surendra Singh) passed on 8.5.2017 and W.P.No.1653 of 2014 (Ghastram v. Veeralal Lodhi) passed on 20.8.2015.
5. Learned counsel for the defendants has contended that an unregistered document which is compulsorily registerable, cannot be admitted in evidence in view of section 17 read with section 49 of the Act. So also an insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. The document in question is undisputedly insufficiently stamped as well as unregistered which cannot be admitted in evidence to establish the right, title or interest over the suit property. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the prayer of the plaintiffs. The petition has no substance and deserves to be dismissed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in 2009(3) MPHT 6 (SC) and by this Court in Khusiram Awasthy v. Sahab Singh and Another, reported in 2012 (3) MPHT 508.
6. Heard. Considered.
7. In this case, the issues that fall for consideration are :
(I). Whether, the trial Court was right in holding that the unregistered relinquish deed is not admissible in evidence being compulsorily registerable documen
An unregistered document which is compulsorily registerable cannot be admitted in evidence except in specific circumstances, as highlighted by the relevant provisions of the Indian Registration Act, ....
An unregistered and unstamped Release Deed cannot be admitted as evidence unless it is duly registered, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while an unregistered document may be inadmissible for the main purpose, it could still be used for collateral purpose under Section 49 of the....
An unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted as evidence for ownership in a declaration suit, violating statutory provisions of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act.
Unregistered documents cannot be used as evidence for transactions affecting immovable property unless for collateral purposes, as per the Registration Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents for collateral purpose, the application of the provisions of the Stamp Act, ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
