KRISHNACHANDRA KULMI PATIDAR Vs. BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2018 whereby the objection raised by the defendant has been upheld in respect of marking of a document as exhibit and also against the order dated 24.09.2018 whereby the application for sending the said document for impounding has been rejected by Civil Judge, Class-II, Maheshwar.

(2.) Facts of the case in short are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession and mesne profit against the defendant in respect of agriculture land mentioned in para nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, their father Sitaram had entered into an agreement dated 18.03.2008 with the defendant in respect of sale of agriculture land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint in total consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. The defendant did not pay the sale consideration on or before 30.05.2008, therefore, the said agreement to sale has deemed to have been cancelled. At the time of execution of said agreement, the possession was handed over to the defendant hence, the plaintiffs sought relief of possession as well as mesne profit.

(3.) During the cross-examination of the plaintiff no. 1, has tendered the said agreement to sale dated 18.03.2008 in the evidence and at that stage, the defendant no. 1 raised objection in respect of admissibility of the said agreement to sale for want of its registration and insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff has submitted that the said deed was executed for the purpose of exchange of land, therefore, it is neither required registration nor payment of stamp duty. The learned Civil Judge has upheld the objection taken by the defendant no. 1 and held that the document is required compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, being unregistered document and insufficient stamped, can not be marked as an exhibit.