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 docu