Unregistered documents that are mandatorily registrable under the Registration Act are inadmissible to prove title in a suit for declaration. They can only be admitted for collateral purposes if the transaction is independent and divisible from the primary transfer, and stamp duty payment does not cure the lack of registration.

Judgment

Reportable

12/11/2021

1. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5754/2018:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 8.3.2018 (Annx.3) to the extent of declining to exhibit the document i.e. agreement to sale dated 5.6.1998 (Annx.4) in evidence, may be quashed and the petitioner may be allowed to exhibit the said documents in evidence before the learned trial court.”

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7926/2018:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Suit No.122/2014 while rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner in regard documents dated 15.02.1971 and 09.09.1988 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the objection raised by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and documents dated 15.02.1971 and 09.09.1988 may kindly be treated not admissible in evidence.”

2. Both the present petitions are having a common issue i.e. admissibility of certain documents supporting the sale in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The impugned order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned trial court has dealt with admissibility of the three documents, namely, sale deed dated 15.02.1971 and agreements to sell dated 09.09.1988 & 05.06.1998.

4. Vide the impugned order, the learned trial court has allowed the admissibility of the aforementioned documents dated 15.02.1971 and 09.09.1988, and thus, the defendant has challenged the same by filing CWP No.7926/2018; whereas, the admissibility of the agreement to sell dated 05.06.1998 has been denied by the learned trial court vide the impugned order, and thus, the plaintiff has challenged the same in CWP No.5754/2018.

5. Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the documents in question do not require registration or stamping so as to become admissible in evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, while referring to proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Registration Act’), tries to impress upon the Court that the document in question is pertaining to evidence for collateral purposes, and thus, falls under the exception of mandatory requirement of registration and stamping.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that at best, the learned trial court could have directed the document in question to be impounded, and after payment of proper stamp duty, the same ought to be declared admissible.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Munna Lal Vs. Prem Bai & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8970/2008, decided on 06.01.2017), relevant portion of which reads as under:

“12. From above, it is seen that Section 17 (1) (b) of the Act of 1908 mandates that any document which has the effect of granting or taking away the right in an immovable property must be registered, where as Section 49 of the Act of 1908 imposes a ban on the admissibility of an unregistered documen