Order

1. By way of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners–plaintiffs have assailed the order dated 15.01.2026 (Annx.11) passed by the Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Deedwana-Kuchaman in Civil Original Suit No. 45/2016 (194/2019), whereby the application filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 17–defendants objecting to the exhibition of documents dated 21.06.1978, alleged to be family settlements (Bhai Bantwara), has been allowed and the application of the petitioners’ under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC to summon and exhibit the said documents, has been rejected.

2. The brief facts, as pleaded, are that the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction asserting rights on the basis of alleged family settlements dated 21.06.1978 in respect of mining lease No. 137. During the course of evidence, the petitioners sought to summon and exhibit the said documents, claiming them to be family arrangements. The respondents- defendants objected on the ground that the documents are unregistered, unstamped and inadmissible in evidence.

3. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application holding that (i) one of the documents is merely a photocopy; and (ii) the other document, though styled as a family settlement, pertains to partition/transfer of rights in immovable property (mining lease), and being unstamped and unregistered, is inadmissible in evidence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial court wrongly rejected the 1978’s family settlement (Bhai Bantwara), which had already divided the family business and gave both sides equal share in Mining Lease No. 137. It is contended that the document was crucial to the case but was not permitted to be exhibited on technical grounds. The trial court erred in treating it as compulsorily registrable, ignoring that it only recorded an existing family arrangement, not creating new rights. It is contended that the trial court should have allowed evidence or framed issues instead of dismissing the application outright.

The documents in question are family settlements, which do not require registration or stamp duty and can be looked into for collateral purposes. It is submitted that the trial court has erred in refusing to even mark the documents as exhibits. The order is, therefore, legally flawed and deprives the petitioners of proving their case, and hence, deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions :-

i. Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3799;

ii. Himani Walia vs. Hemant Walia & Ors. (Ex.P. No. 26/2019) decided on 23.03.2022;

iii. Municipal Council , Bhilwara vs. Bal Mukand (D. B. Special Appeal Writ No. 355/2023) decided on 25.04.2023;

iv. Leela Devi & Ors. vs. Amar Chand & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6969/2006) decided on 02.05.2023.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order, submits that alleged agreement executed between the partners as well as the purported partition deed relied upon by the petitioners, are merely photocopies and not the original documents. The said documents are unstamped and unregistered, hence, they are instruments which are compulsorily required to be duly stamped and registered. In the absence of proper stamping and registration, the said documents are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into or relied upon by the Court for any purpose whatsoever.

8. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, learned counsel submits that the documents in question, being unstamped and unregistered despite being compulsorily chargeable and registrable, are barred from admission