The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered sale deed may be admissible as evidence of an agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, and the admissibility is subject to the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Though this matter was listed for orders on admission, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the applicant (petitioner) seeking review of order dated 30.3.2022 passed in Misc.Petition No.1406/2018 whereby the petition filed by the applicant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been dismissed.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract which was entered into with applicant/defendant in respect of purchase of agricultural suit lands. Alongwith plaint the respondent/plaintiff filed sale deed executed on stamp paper of Rs.50/- (five of Rs.10/- denomination each). It is alleged that in the plaint that document was pleaded to be sale deed and not a draft thereof, which was signed by seller, purchaser and witnesses and contained their photographs. During pendency of civil suit, the applicant/defendant filed an application u/s 17 of Registration Act read with section 35 of the Stamps Act praying not to permit the plaintiff to exhibit the sale deed on the ground that photocopy of said document is not admissible in evidence, and if in case original is produced, the same is neither properly stamped nor registered.

4. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 07.3.2018 dismissed the application filed by the applicant/defendant under section 17 of the Registration Act r/w section 35 of the Stamps Act.

5 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of trial Court, the applicant/defendant filed Misc.Petition No.1406/2018 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court on the ground that if a document is projected as sale deed the same is required to be properly stamped and impounding and further thatn photocopy of document by way of secondary evidence is not permissible in law.

6. This Court by appreciating the totality of circumstances and by referring to the decision in the case of Ameer Minhaj Vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (wright) Issar and others, (2018) 7 SCC 639 dismissed the aforesaid Misc.Petition vide order dated 30.3.2022.

7. The applicant being dissatisfied with order dated 30.3.2022 has filed review/recall of the same on the ground that observation in para 6 of the order under review that trial Court permitted the plaintiff to exhibit unregistered proforma of sale agreement is factually not correct and against the pleaded case of the plaintiff in plaint. The document is a sale deed and not an agreement to sale as is clear from the endorsement of stamp vendor. In paras 6 & 7 of the plaint the document is pleaded to be sale deed and not a draft of sale deed, which is alleged to be signed by the seller, purchaser as well as witnesses alongwith affixing respective photographs. Since document is a sale deed and hence, it is required to be properly stamped as per the market value. This Court ought to have properly appreciated that instruments, which are not duly stamped are inadmissible in evidence. For admissibility of a document its recital are decisive and not the factual situation and it it the question which has been raised before the trial Court. The decisions placed reliance upon by this Court in the case of Ameer Minhaj (supra) and Kaladevi Vs. V.R.Somasundaram, (2018) 7 SCC 639 deal with the question of stamp duty payable on the document. The provisions of Article 23 and explanation thereof as also that of Stamps Act deserved proper consideration. Though unregistered sale deed can be used for collateral purposes, subject to it bears adequate stamp duty. The agreement to sale which recites delivery of possession of property is deemed to be conveyance and requires stamp duty. In case of S.Kaladevi (supra) the question of payment of deficit stamp duty under section 35 and Article 23 of the Stamp Act was not dealt with and hence, it was distinguishable. A conjoint reading of provisions of section 35 of Stamp Act and section 49 of Registration Act woul