1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashment of order dated 5.4.2011 passed by the Court of First Civil Judge Class-I, Guna (Smt. Ramsundaribai- plaintiff v. Shyam Singh and others respondents), whereby an application under section 17 of the Registration Act and section 35 of the Stamp Act, has been decided by learned trial Court.

2. Brief controversy involved in the present writ petition is that defendant had moved an application for exhibiting documents in the form of a lease-deed for a period of more than one year which was not registered on the ground that in case of agriculture land, even if the lease is for more than a period of one year, it's registration is not mandatory. It was also submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act, the terms of section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act shall not be applicable unless and until State Government issues a notification in this regard and a period of six months has expired from the date of publication of such notification. It was also submitted that since the Patta/lease-deed has already been exhibited in another case pending before the Court of 4th Civil Judge Class-I, therefore, no objection can be raised in regard to the present document which was a photocopy of the original to be exhibited. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that in terms of the provisions of section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, lease of immovable property from year-to-year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving an yearly rent is compulsorily registrable and therefore, in absence of such registration, the document was not admissible in evidence specially when it is a photocopy. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sushila Bai v. Keshar Bai, as reported in 2010 RN 91=2010(1) MPLJ 163, wherein it has been held that if Patta of suit land is executed by Bhoomiswami for indefinite period, then such document was compulsorily registrable in view of the provisions contained in section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of the provisions contained in section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act, the document though not registered, was not admissible in evidence and also if the Court in it's wisdom was of the view that the document was not adequately stamped or was not registered, it could have impounded the same and could have sent it for payment of stamp duty.

4. The issue which arises for decision in this case is whether a photocopy of a document which is in relation to lease of an immovable property having duration of one year or more, could have been exhibited without it being registered and without adequate stamp duty being paid on the same. The issue is that compounding under the provisions of Stamp Act is permissible where the Court is of the view that the document has not been adequately stamped, but impounding of such document would not necessarily mean that it has been registered. Provisions of section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, necessarily requires registration of all leases pertaining to immovable property from year-to-year or for any term exceeding one year. No distinction has been made between lease of an immovable property pertaining to agriculture land and lease of a nonagriculture land in the provisions contained in section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. Thus, the provisions of section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act operates in a different plane then the provisions which are contained in the Registration Act, 1908.

5. In any case, photocopy of a document could have been admissible only as secondary evidence in terms of the provisions contained in section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act and it is an admitted position that the petitioner had not moved any application for exhibiting