MANGILAL RATANLALJL PATIDAR Vs. DAMBARLAL RATANLALJI PATIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the petitioners before this Court. They are aggrieved against an order dated November 8, 2006 passed by the trial Judge, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs under section 49 of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) has been dismissed and a document in question dated February 9, 2002 has not been permitted to be led in evidence even for collateral purposes.

(2.) THE plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming absolute ownership of the suit property by alleging that the property in question had fallen to their exclusive share on a family partition. For the aforesaid purposes, the plaintiffs have relied upon an affidavit dated february 9, 2002.

(3.) THE suit is being contested by the defendant No. 1 - Dambarlal. During the course of evidence of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs wanted to produce the aforesaid affidavit on record, which was objected by the defendant no. 1 on the ground that the said document was a relinquishment deed. It was claimed that the said affidavit was compulsorily required to be registered and having not been so registered, could not be admissible in evidence. Vide order dated December 21, 2004, the trial Court ruled in favour of the defendant and held that the document required compulsory registration and having not been so registered, the same was not admissible. The order dated December 21, 2004 has never been challenged by the plaintiffs and as such has attained finality before the trial Court.