The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has definitively ruled that an unregistered relinquishment deed, which requires mandatory registration under the law, cannot be rendered admissible in evidence by simply paying the deficit stamp duty. In a decisive judgment delivered by Justice Sameer Jain, the court dismissed a petition that sought to challenge the lower court’s refusal to allow such a document into the trial record, effectively barring the use of an instrument that lacked the necessary legal validation.

The dispute stems from a civil suit initiated by the respondent, Ankur Khandelwal, who sought the cancellation of a sale deed, along with a declaration of rights, partition, and a permanent injunction regarding specific house and shop properties. During the proceedings before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bandikui, the petitioner, Radheshyam Gupta, presented a relinquishment deed dated December 5, 2009, as a basis for his claim to exclusive title and possession over the disputed properties. The respondent challenged the admissibility of this deed, pointing out that it was never registered in accordance with statutory requirements.

Judicial Scrutiny of Procedural Tactics The trial court, in an order dated October 7, 2025, held the relinquishment deed inadmissible, noting that it purported to extinguish rights in immovable property exceeding a value of one hundred rupees, thereby invoking the mandatory registration requirements of the Registration Act, 1908. Following this, the petitioner moved an application on November 7, 2025, offering to pay the deficit stamp duty and requesting the court to send the document to the Collector (Stamps) for impounding. When the trial court rejected this request on February 25, 2026—describing the move as a “futile academic exercise” and an indirect attempt to review its prior ruling—the petitioner approached the High Court for intervention.

In the High Court, the petitioner argued that the failure to pay adequate stamp duty was a curable defect and that the court was statutorily mandated to impound the document under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. The petitioner further contended that the document should be allowed for “collateral purposes” to establish the nature of his possession. However, the High Court identified a fundamental flaw in this reasoning, distinguishing between the curable nature of stamp duty deficits and the absolute requirement for registration.

Highlighting the gravity of the legal shortfall, Justice Sameer Jain observed: “The legislative intent behind Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, is absolute and admits no equitable circumvention.” The court emphasized that while stamping irregularities can be addressed under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, this mechanism cannot be used as a vehicle to validate a document that suffers from the incurable defect of non-registration.

Distinguishing Collateral Purpose from Core Lis The petitioner’s attempt to rely on the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, for collateral purposes was also categorically rejected. The High Court observed that in this specific case, the relinquishment deed was not being used for an incidental matter, but rather as the primary evidence to support the petitioner’s claim of exclusive title and possession. Because the nature and character of possession were at the very heart of the conflict between the parties, the court found the claim that it was for “collateral purposes” to be entirely unsustainable.

The judgment further articulated: “Curing the stamp defect will not resurrect a document that is dead in the eyes of the law for want of registration.” The court reiterated that when a document, which is mandatorily registrable, is not registered, it cannot be admitted into evidence for the purpose of claiming ownership or altering rights in property, regardless of any subsequent attempts to rectify the financial duty paid on the paper.

Curbing Dilatory Litigation Tactics The High Court expressed significant concern regarding the use of such applications as a means to protract civil litigation. It observed that the petitioner had the independent, statutory liberty to pay the deficient stamp duty to the state authorities directly under the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1962, without needing to involve the court. By bringing the request to the trial court after it had already ruled the document inadmissible, the petitioner was viewed as having engaged in a vexatious attempt to obstruct the trial’s progress.

Regarding the role of the judiciary in managing such procedural hurdles, the bench noted: “Operating as the sentinel on the qui vive, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator to the myriad dilatory tactics employed by litigants to protract civil proceedings and permit the supervisory jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to be exploited to revive legally inadmissible documents or to foster dilatory tactics in civil proceedings.”

Ultimately, the High Court found that the trial court had acted with complete procedural correctness in refusing to entertain the application for impounding. By dismissing the petition, the court has reinforced the sanctity of the Registration Act and signaled that the supervisory jurisdiction of higher courts is not a mechanism for litigants to circumvent foundational evidentiary laws. The orders passed by the trial court were upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed, effectively preventing the admission of the contentious relinquishment deed into the ongoing trial, which must now proceed without reliance on that specific instrument. The interim orders previously granted during the pendency of these writ petitions were vacated forthwith.