TILAK JAIN Vs. BALA SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 84-A/13 whereby the learned Court has refused to mark the exhibit on the agreement to sell dated 6.9.2010 on the count that it is required to be registered, therefore, it cannot be exhibited under the provision of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi vs. B. R. Soma Sundaram, 2010 3 MPLJ 500 wherein, it has been held that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance for collateral purposes. He has again relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court as reported in 2017 (III) MPLJ 97. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that an application for impounding the document was also filed by him and he is ready to pay the remaining stamp duty and penalty as per the provisions contained under Section 35 of the Stamp Act but the trial Court without considering the aforesaid preposition has rejected the application on the ground that in terms of the amended provisions in the Registration Act with respect to compulsory registration of a document relating to an immovable property which was effected from 14.01.2010 the document cannot be taken on record and marked as an exhibit. Further more Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 provides that an unregistered document cannot be taken into consideration even for collateral purpose. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application. He has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order with a direction to the learned trial Court to consider the aforesaid document and also send the document to the learned Collector for impounding the same in terms of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer has given his appearance in the matter and has argued that the learned trial Court has committed an error in not sending the document to the learned Collector for impounding. It is contended that the petitioner has rightly filed the application for impounding the document which should have been allowed by the learned trial Court. He has relied upon Section 49 of the Registration Act and has argued that in terms of the aforesaid provisions the documents should have been sent to the competent authority for impounding as the petitioner is also ready for impounding of the document, therefore, the impugned order to the aforesaid effect is illegal and has prayed for sending the document to the competent authority for impounding purpose.