SANTOSH SINGH Vs. MANOHARLAL SHEETALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners defendants challenging the order dtd. 28/11/2025 passed by the trial Court, whereby application by the defendants No.1 to 3 under Sec. 64 of BSA 2023 has been rejected.

(2.) The trial Court has rejected the application under Sec. 64 BSA on the ground that the petitioners want to lead the secondary evidence of the document, which is a photocopy of unregistered and un-stamped agreement to sale dtd. 14/10/2019. The trial Court has held that the photocopy indicates that the agreement seems to be written on the stamp paper of Rs.100.00 and the said agreement has the contents of the same being for 15251 square feet of land and advance amount of Rs.1.00 crores to have been given in terms of the said agreement. The trial Court has held that though registration of the agreement is not essential, but payment of due Stamp Duty is essential and as per the Stamp Duty payable in State of Madhya Pradesh, ad valorem fees @ 1% is payable whereas the agreement is written on stamp paper of Rs.100.00. The trial Court has held that an un-stamped document is not admissible for any purpose, i.e. either for real purpose or for collateral purpose and a photocopy cannot even be impounded by the Court for payment of proper stamp duty and therefore, on these grounds has rejected the application under Sec. 64 of BSA.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner had argued that a Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No.7118 of 2023 (Smt. Laxmi Bai and others vs. Mohan Goud) has held that an unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purposes. Further reliance is made on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muruganandam vs. Muniyandi (Died) through LRs passed in Civil Appeal No.6543 of 2025 to contend that an unregistered and un-stamped document can be looked into for collateral purposes and secondary evidence can be given of such document. Therefore, it is argued that the trial Court has erred in not permitting secondary evidence of the said document to be given and has erred in rejecting application under Sec. 64 of BSA.