CHETAN KUMAR Vs. HAMIDA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order dated 08.05.2019, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salumber, District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), whereby a document, produced by the petitioner has been refused to be admitted in evidence, as it was insufficiently stamped and un- registered.

(2.) The facts appertain to the present purposes are that the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of possession interalia alleging that the petitioner is her tenant and she wants to get her shop vacated. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the petitioner, before institution of the suit.

(3.) In the suit so filed by the plaintiff, the present petitioner filed a cross-suit and prayed for specific performance of a purported agreement to sell dated 11.10.2010. When the plaintiff was leading her evidence, the petitioner confronted her with the contentious document dated 11.10.2010, whereupon the plaintiff immediately lodged an objection that the document in question cannot be tendered in evidence, as it was neither sufficiently stamped nor was it duly registered.