An unregistered document affecting property rights is inadmissible as evidence under the Registration Act.

1. Petitioner / defendant has filed this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P / 1) passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 05 - A / 2014 whereby the objection raised by the petitioner / defendant before the court for not taking the document i.e. Annexure P / 2 on record because it is not admissible in law as it was unregistered and not duly stamped, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court considered the objection raised by the defendant and also heard the counsel for the plaintiff and finally passed the impugned order saying that document in question is nothing but a Will and therefore it is not required to be registered and also not required to be stamped, therefore the objection raised by the defendant has been rejected by the court, the said document was allowed to be taken on record and was permitted to be exhibited.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has committed a mistake considering the said document to be a Will whereas the document itself contained the executor namely, Jhunnalal Sahu had to execute the Will with regard to his property separately and that was done by him. The Will was executed with regard to the property in question on 19 March, 2002 and that Will is on record as Annexure P / 5. Not only this, but he has also filed a document i.e. Annexure P / 7 whereby Jhunnalal has cancelled the Will and also the document which is in question, by a registered document dt. 24.02.2010. According to him, it clearly indicates that the document that is titled as 'Abhiswikriti Patra'. From the recital of the document it is clear that it required to be registered because it is transferring the right and title in favour of Manish who is son of executor. He submits that in such a circumstance when executor himself admitted that the Will is being separately written and that Will is also on record and documents cancelling the Will is also on record, the document in question cannot be considered to be a Will. The observation made by the trial court considering this document to be a Will, taken on record and permitted to be executed is not proper. He submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as this document is not registered and duly stamped and cannot be taken on record.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has opposed the submission and submits that the court did commit any illegality saying that document in question is a Will. He submits that from the recital of the document it is clear that the executor has given his property to Manish and also mentioned that the other family member would not get any share over the same and he submits that this document fulfills the requirement of Will because it has also been signed by the two witnesses and as such order of the trial court is proper.

5. After considering the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, the document which is said to be a Will by the trial court and permitted to be taken on record, though the same was unregistered and not duly signed, I have perused perused the recital of the document, it is titled as "Abhiswikrati Patra" but from the contents of document it reveals that Jhunnalal, the executor, has distributed his self acquired property among his sons and created right in their favour. As per the document, the executor assigning reason given maximum share to his one of the sons namely, Manish, as such transferred the right and document therefore required to be registered as creating right in favour of