Ramesh Son Of Moolya vs Jagan Son Of Shri Shyam Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 2481 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2481 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Ramesh Son Of Moolya vs Jagan Son Of Shri Shyam Lal on 23 March, 2022

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3967/2022

1.     Ramesh Son Of Moolya, Aged About 60 Years, Resident
       Of Village Vinega, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai
       Madhopur, Rajasthan.
2.     Kailash Son Of Moolya, Resident Of Village Vinega,
       Tehsil     Gangapur          City,     District          Sawai   Madhopur,
       Rajasthan.
                                                        ----Plaintiff/Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.     Jagan Son Of Shri Shyam Lal,
2.     Ramswaroop Son Of Khyali,
3.     Brijmohan Son Of Ramjilal,
       All are Residents Of Village Vinega, Tehsil Gangapur
       City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. D.K. Dixit
For Respondent(s)           :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

23/03/2022

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

19.02.2022 passed by the learned Gram Nyaylaya, Gangapur

City whereby the objection raised by the petitioners against

permitting the respondents from exhibiting an unregistered

agreement to sell, has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

agreement to sell being unregistered was not admissible for any

purpose and could not have been permitted to be exhibited in

evidence. He, in support of his submission, relied upon a co-

(2 of 4) [CW-3967/2022]

ordinate Bench order of this Court dated 17.07.2018 in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1322/2017; Hari Krishan Sharma & Ors.

Vs. Umakant Sharma & Ors..

Heard. Considered.

In a suit for permanent injunction, the defendants have

tendered an unregistered agreement to sell in evidence which

has been permitted to be exhibited by the learned trial Court

vide order impugned herein. A perusal of the application filed by

the defendants reveals that they want to use this document in

evidence for collateral purpose. Proviso to Section 49 of the

Registration Act, 1908 provides as under:

"[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) **, *** or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]"

Therefore, an unregistered document which is compulsorily

registrable can be used in evidence for any collateral purpose

not required to be effected by registered instrument. Learned

counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy this Court that the

agreement in question shall be used by the defendants not for

collateral transaction; but, for the purpose which requires its

compulsory registration. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex

Court of India in case of Prakash Sahu versus Saulal & Ors.:

MANU/SC/1530/2019, held as under:-

"3. The short question in the present appeal is whether an unregistered agreement of sale can be seen for collateral

(3 of 4) [CW-3967/2022]

purposes under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. The Trial Court based its- reasoning on a decision of this Court in S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 401 elucidating as follows:-

"(i) In that situation it is essential for the registration of the document, if, unregistered is not admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

(ii) Yet, such unregistered document can be used by way of collateral evidences provided in the proviso to the Section 49 of the Registration Act.

(iii) For effecting with the collateral transaction, whose registration is required by law should be free from the the transaction or be divisible form that.

(iv) Collateral transaction should be such a transaction which may not be automatically expected of effecting by the registered document, i.e. Rupees One Hundred or any transaction or instrument or right or interest in any immovable property of the value of more than Rupees One Hundred.

(v) If the document is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of registration then any of its estopple cannot be admitted in evidence and for use of the document for purposes of proving important part, it would not be utilized by way of collateral purpose.

5. The High Court failed to consider the aforesaid while holding that the unregistered document could not be taken into consideration for collateral purposes.

6. We consider the same as sufficient reason to set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the Trial Court dated 18 March, 2016."

(4 of 4) [CW-3967/2022]

In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied

upon by the learned counsel is of no help to him.

The learned trial Court has rejected the objection raised by

the petitioners taking into consideration all these aspects of the

matter. The order dated 19.02.2022 is a well-reasoned one

based on cogent material on record. It does not suffer from any

patent jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference

of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.