HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8021/2025 Chhotulal Son Of Shri Kalyan, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Bambori, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Sudha Kanwar Wife Of Bhupendra Singh Naruka, Resident Of Plot No. 350-A, Talvandi, Kota (Raj.)

2. Bhupendra Naruka Son Of Nawal Singh, Resident Of Plot No. 350-A, Talvandi, Kota (Raj.)

3. Nagar Parishad, Sawai Madhopur, Through Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Sawai Madhopur.

4. Nagar Parishad, Sawai Madhopur, Through Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Singh Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Civil Suit No.148/2014, whereby application of the petitioner- plaintiff objecting to the admissibility and exhibiting of the documents filed by the defendants-respondents has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents. The defendants-respondents filed the reply and also filed the counter-claim. The learned Trial Court framed the issues on 17.03.2017. During the evidence, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application stating therein that the agreements to sell dated 16.01.1984 produced by the respondents-defendants is not properly stamped and not registered, therefore same is not admissible in evidence and further cannot be exhibited. The application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 28.04.2025, hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that the agreement to sell on which the defendants want to place reliance for decree of counter claim is neither sufficiently stamped nor registered. The document is creating right and possession of the property that has been transferred under the document in the property, as pleaded by the respondent in para 4 & 5 of the counter claim of the respondent.

3.1 In the counter-claim, no relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell has been claimed but rather the defendant on the basis of agreements to sell have prayed for declaration to the effect that the defendant may be declared owner of the property.

3.2 Moreover for the purpose of declaration of ownership, an agreement to sell cannot be made admissible in evidence and the learned Trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents contends that the agreements have been got written by the father of the defendants-respondents.

4.1 Further, the documents do not require stamps and registration.

4.2 The documents do not create any right in the property, therefore, the same does not require registration.

4.3 Learned counsel for the defendants-respondents further submit that the documents being old one, therefore, the same can be permitted to be exhibited and prayed that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality, so as to call for any interference under Article 227 Constitution of India.

4.4 Learned counsel for respondent to buttress his arguments placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2926; Food Corporation of India versus M/S Babulal Agarwal.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court finds that it is undisputed fact that the suit or the counter-claim of the defendants-respondents is not for specific performance of the agreement.

7. The counter-claim is for the declar