DEEPCHAND Vs. MAHAVEER CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dt. 17.07.2013 passed by the trial Court, whereby on an application filed by the defendants under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, on the ground that the document dt. 28.02.1980 was unregistered and unstamped, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the registration of the document Annex. -3 was not necessary. However, it went on to observe that as the document does not bear signatures of other two brothers, the same cannot be taken in evidence, however, the same can be utilised for the collateral purpose and allowed the application filed by the defendants. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the document Annex. -3 is a memorandum of partition, which is not required to bear any stamp and the trial Court having came to the conclusion that the document did not require registration and could be admitted for collateral purpose under Sec. 49 of the Registration Act could not have directed that the document could not be admitted in evidence; so far as the stamp duty on the document is concerned, the plaintiffs have already offered that the stamp duty if applicable, could be paid by the plaintiffs and the document will then become admissible and the trial Court committed grave error in, on the one hand, holding that the document could be admitted for collateral purposes, has simultaneously ordered that the same cannot be exhibited.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) HOWEVER , for the order proposed to be passed, no notice to the respondent needs to be issued in a suit which pertains to the year 2000 and is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence.