VISHNU SWAROOP Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner challenge the order dated 14. 5. 2007, whereby the application moved by non-petitioner Hari Ram was accepted.

(2.) FACTS relevant to the present case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Court and therein, a reference of a document executed on 30. 12. 1964 as well as a partnership deed dated 17th February, 1993 was made and those documents were also submitted. The respondent- Hari Ram, who is defendant in the suit, raised objection regarding admissibility of those documents, being unregistered documents. The objection, so raised by way of an application was duly replied by the petitioner showing that the document dated 30. 12. 1964 was nothing, but a settlement of partnership of properties between the partners and the said document was otherwise produced for collateral purposes. The learned Court below considered the application moved by the respondent-Hari Ram and, thereupon, after referring the document and taking note of the nature of the suit, came to the conclusion that the document dated 30. 12. 1964 is nothing but a sale effected pursuant to the auction of the property and thus, cannot be said to be document prepared between the brothers to show the settlement of the property. It was, therefore, held that in absence of registration of the document, being a sale-deed, the document cannot be made admissible in evidence. Same way, even the partnership deed was not accepted, being unregistered and unstamped, thus, finding it not to be admissible in evidence as per the provisions of Section 49 of the Act and thereby the application of the respondent-Hari Ram was accepted.

(3.) SO far as the partnership deed is concerned, though it is required to be on the stamp paper, but perusal of the contents of the suit and the prayer made therein does not show that the relief is claimed on the basis of the said document, rather it is only for collateral purpose that the document was produced. Hence, the said document could not have been denied for consideration in evidence, for collateral purpose, therefore, the impugned order of the Court below is not sustainable in regard to the said document also.