IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 7195 of 2025

SMT. SANTOSH SINGH AND OTHERS

Versus

SHRI MANOHARLAL SHEETALANI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Satish Kumar Dawra - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri M.R. Choudhary - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER is essential and as per the Stamp Duty payable in State of Madhya Pradesh, ad valorem fees @ 1% is payable whereas the agreement is written on stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The trial Court has held that an un-stamped document is not admissible for any purpose, i.e. either for real purpose or for collateral purpose and a photocopy cannot even be impounded by the Court for payment of proper stamp duty and therefore, on these grounds has rejected the application under Section 64 of BSA.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners defendants

challenging the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the trial Court, whereby application by the defendants No.1 to 3 under Section 64 of BSA 2023 has

been rejected.

2. The trial Court has rejected the application under Section 64 BSA

on the ground that the petitioners want to lead the secondary evidence of the document, which is a photocopy of unregistered and un-stamped agreement to sale dated 14.10.2019. The trial Court has held that the photocopy indicates that the agreement seems to be written on the stamp paper of Rs.100/- and the said agreement has the contents of the same being for 15251 square feet of land and advance amount of Rs.1.00 crores to have been given in terms of the said agreement. The trial Court has held that though registration of the agreement is not essential, but payment of due Stamp Duty

3. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that a Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No.7118 of 2023 (Smt. Laxmi Bai & others vs. Mohan Goud) has held that an unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purposes. Further reliance is made on judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muruganandam vs. Muniyandi (Died) through LRs passed in Civil Appeal No.6543 of 2025 to contend that an unregistered and un- stamped document can be looked into for collateral purposes and secondary evidence can be given of such document. Therefore, it is argued that the trial Court has erred in not permitting secondary evidence of the said document to be given and has erred in rejecting application under Section 64 of BSA.

4. Upon considering the aforesaid, it is seen that admittedly the document in question is chargeable with the stamp duty of 1% on ad valorem basis. The document is written on stamp paper of Rs.100/- only and it is insufficiently stamped. The trial Court has rightly held that photocopy of document cannot be impounded for payment of deficit stamp duty and once photocopy cannot be impounded, therefore, the deficit stamp duty cannot be made good by resorting to provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and once a insufficiently stamped document is not admissible, therefore, there is no purpose in entertaining application under Section 64 BSA in the matter of secondary evidence of the photocopy of the said document.

5. The reliance placed on the judgement of the Division Bench in the case of Laxmi Bai (Supra) is utterly misconstrued, because in the said judgement the Division Bench only considered the effect of unregistered document of agreement to sale and held that it can be looked into for collateral purposes. The law in that regard is not at all in dispute, because as per proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 the same has been provided. Section 49 of Registration Act is as under:-

"49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.—No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall—

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferr