THEKURA Vs. SUKHRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a portion of plot no. 278B in Mahal Chitta Singh and demolition of a building erected on it by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff and one Jagannath were co-sharers in Mahal Chitta Singh. Jagannath gave permission to the defendant-appellant in construct a building on the plot in suit. In pursuance of the permission, the defendant-appellant raised a construction on the plot. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit, which has given rise to this appeal, for demolition of this construction and for possession of the plot on the ground that one co-sharer had no right to give permission to make constructions on a pint piece of land.

(2.) In defence, it was urged that there was a private partition between the cosharers in the mahal and the plot in suit had fallen to the lot of Jagannath's prodecessor-in-title. In support of this plea a partition chithi showing the plots which had been allotted to Jagannath's predecessor-in-title was produced by the defendant-appellant. Relying on this document, as also on other documents, the trial Court held in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, held that the chittha was an instrument which required stamp and also registration and that not being stamped nor registered it was not admissible in evidence even for a collateral purpose, namely, for the purpose of showing the nature of possession of Jagannath or his predecessor-in-title. The lower appellate Court, therefore, decreed the suit for possession and demolition.

(3.) In this second appeal it has been urged on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the parti-tion chitthi was admissible in evidence, that neither stamp duty was payable on it nor did it require registration and that, in any case, even if it required registration but no stamp duty, it was admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose of showing the nature of Jagannath's possession.