RAJENDRA KUMAR KHANDELWAL Vs. RAJKUMARI KHANDELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question agitated in the present writ petition is about the admissibility of deed dated 1. 1. 1934 which dealt with the property worth at least to Rs. 4,000/- at the relevant time. It was not registered nor it was stamped. The document was executed at Satna which fell within the erstwhile state of Rewa. The provision of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917 were applicable at the relevant time.

(2.) BEFORE the trial court an interlocutory application was filed u/s 33 of Indian stamp Act, the document was not stamped nor it was registered. Prayer was made to impound it and to receive the penalty along with stamp duty. It was prayed that document be sent to the Collector for Stamp. Prayer was objected by the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that property was partitioned by the document in question. The trial court has held that registration of the document was necessary, as such it cannot be used so as to prove the title being unregistered one. The requisite stamp duty has been ordered to be paid along with the penalty. It has also been held that document can be received in evidence for the collateral purposes after payment of the requisite stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the order the writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) SHRI K. N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners, has submitted that the order passed by the trial court inasmuch as document can be read in evidence for collateral purpose is illegal. He has placed reliance on single bench's decision of this Court in Laxman Prasad v. Yagya Narain, 1980 (1) MPWN 283 and section 21 of Rewa State Registration Act, 1917 He has submitted that bare reading of section 21 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917 makes it clear that the document cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. There is difference between the language used in the provision of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and of section 21 of the Rewa Stale registration Act, 1917.