RAM BABU Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is decided finally at the admission stage. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 by the petitioners -plaintiffs challenging the order dated 25.2.09 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) Tonk, District Tonk (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 121/2000, whereby the trial court has allowed the application filed by the respondents -defendants and refused to take on record the document produced by the petitioners -plaintiffs for want of registration and stamp duty.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the petitioners -plaintiffs have filed the suit against the respondents -defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit plot, on the basis of a memorandum of gift deed (Bakhshishnama) dated 25.1.63 executed by the Nawab of Tonk in favour of Shri Ramanand, (since deceased) the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners -plaintiffs. The said suit has been resisted by the respondents -defendants by filing the written statement disputing the validity of the said gift deed. When the suit was fixed for the examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, the petitioners -plaintiffs had filed an affidavit of the witness Kedar Vijayvargiya (P.W. 1) as his examination -in -chief and also produced the gift deed dated 25.1.63, marking it as Ex. 5. When the said witness was to be cross -examined on the admissibility of the said document, the respondents had filed an application objecting the admissibility of the said document contending inter -alia that the document was not registered one, though a memorandum of gift in respect of an immovable property. The trial court vide the impugned order allowed the said application and did not admit the said document in evidence.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned Dy. Government Counsel Mr. Hari Barath for the respondents vehemently submitted that the document in question required registration as per the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Registration Act, and therefore, the trial court has rightly not admitted the said document in evidence. He also submitted that the document in question did not meet with the requirements of a gift under the Mohammedan Law, and therefore could not be said to be a valid gift, and that the alleged donar also had no authority to execute such document.