[2026:RJ-JP:12157]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20013/2023 Satya Prakash Arya S/o Sh. Ram Krishna Arya, R/o Plot No. A- 104, Friends Colony, Meenawala, Panchayawala, Sirsi Road, Ward No. 3, Jaipur And House No. 3874, Rasta Kundigar Bherunji Ka, Nearby Temple Bihari Ji Circle, South Facing House Chowkri Ghat Darwaja, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner/Defendant No.3 Versus

1. Tarachand Agarwal S/o Late Sh. Ram Babu Agarwal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o House No. 3874, Rasta Kundigar Bherunji Ka, Nearby Temple Bihari Ji Circle, South Facing House Chowkri Ghat Darwaja, Johri Bazar, Jaipur.

Plaintiff/Respondent

2. Ram Narayan Ji Nangaliya, 3. Raj Kumar Ji Nangaliya, Both S/o Shri Sajjan Raj Nangaliya, R/o C-107-108, Shyam Kutir, Jay Jawan Colony-Iii, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, (In Front Of Jaipuria Hospital), Jaipur (Raj.) & Shyamal, 501, Near Arti Nursing Home, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

----Defendant No.1&2/Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta Mr. Lakshya K. Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

23/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 22/2010, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of Exhibit-3 from the record on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped, and further objecting that the document was compulsorily registrable and therefore inadmissible in evidence, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 by rejecting the application of the defendant-petitioner concerning the admissibility of the said document.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a bare perusal of the document reveals that it is not a family settlement, but rather a unilateral document, which is in the nature of a gift or relinquishment deed, and therefore requires compulsory registration. In the absence of registration and proper stamp duty, the document is inadmissible in evidence. Accordingly, he prays that the order dated 11.10.2023 be quashed and set aside, the document marked as Exhibit-3 be held inadmissible, and the application filed by the defendant-petitioner be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the settled legal position and submits that even if the document has been exhibited, such exhibition alone does not render it admissible. However, the document may be impounded and sent for proper valuation and payment of stamp duty.

5. This Court finds that, at this stage, there is no error in the order dated 11.10.2023. However, it is the duty of the Court that if an insufficiently stamped instrument comes before it, even after being exhibited, the Court is obliged to impound the same and refer it to the competent authority for proper valuation and assessment of stamp duty in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamp Act.

6. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to impound the document, while retaining a certified exhibited copy on record, and to send Exhibit- 3 to the competent authority for valuation and determination of proper stamp duty.

7. Insofar as the petitioner’s objection regarding compulsory registration of Exhibit-3 and its consequent inadmissibility in evidence is concerned, this Court observes that mere exhibition of a document does not dispense with its proof. It is a well-settled principle of law that even if a document is exhibited, the Court is not bound to rely upon it unless it is duly proved and otherwise admissible in law.

8. Furthermore, even if, at the final stage, the Court finds that the document was compulsorily registrable, mere exhibition does not mandate reliance upon it. The question of i