RAVI KUMAR TANK Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant challenging order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short "the Trial Court") whereby the objection of the defendant-petitioner with regard to acceptance of agreement to sell dated 19.02.2010 produced by the respondent- plaintiff has been rejected and question with regard to its admissibility has been left open by the Trial Court.

(2.) Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that agreement to sell, which is neither registered nor duly stamped, cannot be held admissible in evidence. Learned Trial Court has failed to consider provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908(for short "the Act" ) according to which registration of the document was compulsory. According to subsection (1A) of Section 17 of the Act, the documents containing contracts or transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the registration and other related laws and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then they shall have no effect for the purpose of the Section 53-A. It is argued that as per Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, no instrument chargeable with duty under the Act can be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and cannot be acted upon registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped.

(3.) In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omprakash v. Laxminarayan & Ors., 2014 3 CivCC 40 and Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 1 CivCC 735; decisions rendered by this Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar & Anr.,2013 2 CivCC 712; Indu v. Narsingh Das & Ors., 2013 2 CivCC 3; Smt. Krishna Devi v. ADJ(F.T.) No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan & Others, 2012 WLC(Raj) 247; decision rendered by Uttarakhand High Court in Mahant Krishna Giri, Chela Mahant Vikram Giri v. Smt. Deepa Devi, 2013 4 CivCC 463. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that Andhra High Court in Golla Dharmanna v. Sakari Poshetty & Ors., 2014 1 CivCC 188 has held that decision as to admissibility of such a document in evidence need not be postponed to the final stage of delivery of judgment. The document which is not registered, nor duly stamped cannot be even read in evidence for collateral purposes.