HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12303/2019

1.

Prahlad, Aged About 57 Years,

2.

Chanda Ram, Aged About 50 Years,

3.

Omprakash, Aged About 46 Years,

All are sons of Shri Malaram, R/o Hardiya, Tehsil Khetri,

District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

Dayachand S/o Shri Surjaram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o

Hardiya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Brahma Prakash, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Order

Date of Order

::

11th May, 2021

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs (for short, ‘the

plaintiffs) against the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the Trial

court, whereby the application filed by the respondent-defendant

(for short, ‘the defendant’) has been allowed and the plaintiffs

have not been permitted to get the documents in question

exhibited.

Facts of the case as per the plaintiffs are that on

2.1.2002, they purchased land from one Makkhan S/o Jhoontha

Ram Khati. Subsequently, plaintiffs got their houses constructed

thereon. It was averred that after leaving 8 ft. wide way, on

2.1.2002 the defendant also purchased a plot from Makkhan S/o

Jhoontha Ram Khati. It was also averred that a "Likhawat" was also

(2 of 6)

[CW-12303/2019]

written with regard to the aforesaid 8 Ft. wide way, wherein the

way was stated to be common. They were using 8 ft. wide way for

the purpose of entry and exit from their houses. Subsequently,

dispute arose between the parties and the plaintiffs filed a suit for

permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant with

regard to aforesaid 8 ft. (24 X 472 = 113.28 sq. mtrs.) wide way.

The defendant filed an application before the trial court

for not permitting the documents to be exhibited as the same

were unregistered and insufficiently stamped.

The trial court vide its order dated 21.3.2018 observed

that by the agreement dated 12.12.2001, the 8 ft. wide way was

not sold. On the contrary, rights in immovable property were

transferred by the agreement dated 12.12.2001, which was

neither registered nor sufficiently stamped. Similarly, rights in

immovable property were transferred by the "Likhawat" dated

2.1.2002, which was neither registered nor sufficiently stamped.

In this view of the matter, the trial Court impounded both the

documents and sent them to DIG Stamps for payment of proper

stamp duty.

The plaintiffs paid the requisite stamp duty/penalty

thereon and DIG (Stamps) vide his letter dated 14.8.2018

returned the document(s) in issue to the Trial Court.

Thereafter the defendant filed an application for neither

permitting the documents to be admitted in evidence nor

permitting to be exhibited. The abovementioned application was

allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 26.4.2019. Hence,

this writ petition.

(3 of 6)

[CW-12303/2019]

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that pursuant

to the order dated 21.3.2018 passed by the trial court, the

documents were impounded and sent to DIG (Stamps) for

payment of proper stamp duty. The plaintiffs paid the requisite

stamp duty / penalty thereon. The documents in issue ought to

have been admitted in evidence for collateral purpose, for which

no registration was required. In support of his contentions, he has

placed reliance on the following judgments:

i)

Sita Ram Bhama Versus Ramvatar Bhama reported in 2018

DNJ (SC) 798

ii)

Avinash Kumar Chauhan Versus Vijay Krishna Mishra

reported in 2009 AIR SCW 979

iii)

Sanjeev Bhardwaj Versus Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar

reported in 2019 (4) WLC (Raj.) 348

On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant

submits that a document by which rights in an immovable

property has been assig