Rajasthan High Court
Mr. Shakeel Khan Son Of Mr. Ayub ... vs Shri Manoj Jadam, Son Of Shri ... on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6168/2022
Mr. Shakeel Khan Son Of Mr. Ayub Khan, Aged About 54 Years,
Resident Of - Village - Boraj Tehsil And District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Manoj Jadam, Son Of Shri Bhagchand Jadam,
Resident Of Panchauli-Chauraha Kotda Road Ramnagar,
Ajmer.
2. Mr. Mangharam Boolani Son Mr. Jhamtmal Boolani,
Deceased Through Its Legal Heirs-
3. Mrs. Radha Devi Wife Of Late. Shri Mangharam., Resident
- Diggi Chowk, Ajmer
4. Shri Kamal Son Late. Mr. Mangharam, Resident - Diggi
Chowk, Ajmer
5. Mrs. Vimala Daughter Late. Mr. Mangharam, Resident -
Diggi Chowk, Ajmer
6. Mr. Asif Ali Son Mr. Nawab Ali, Deceased Through Its
Legal Heirs-
7. Mrs. Raisa B (Wife), Resident - 183, Moula Ali, Manzil
Sabri Gali, Tripolia Gate, Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
8. Shabana Chishti Wife Mr. Mohammad Maqbool Chishti
(Daughter), Resident - 183, Moula Ali, Manzil Sabri Gali,
Tripolia Gate, Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
9. Chishtia Chishti Wife Mr. Mohammad Shahid Chishti
(Daughter), Resident - 183, Moula Ali, Manzil Sabri Gali,
Tripolia Gate, Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
10. Shafia Chishti Wife Mr Mazhar Chishti (Daughter),
Resident - 183, Moula Ali, Manzil Sabri Gali, Tripolia Gate,
Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
11. Sheikh Daulat Ali Chishti (Son), Resident - 183, Moula Ali,
Manzil Sabri Gali, Tripolia Gate, Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
12. Sheikh Tanwgar Ali Chishti (Son), Resident - 183, Moula
Ali, Manzil Sabri Gali, Tripolia Gate, Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
13. Nazia Chishti Wife Mr. Salim Mohammad Chishti
(Daughter), Resident - 183, Moula Ali, Manzil Sabri Gali,
Tripolia Gate, Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:15:54 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-6168/2022]
14. Sheikh Ramzan Ali Chishti (Son), Resident - 183, Moula
Ali, Manzil Sabri Gali, Tripolia Gate, Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
15. Shazia Chishti (Daughter), Resident - 183, Moula Ali,
Manzil Sabri Gali, Tripolia Gate, Dargah Sharif, Ajmer.
16. Shri Shahid Ali Son Of Shri Nawab Ali, R/o 260/5, Yadgar
Guest House, Tripolia Gate, Ajmer.
17. Shri Khwaja Hassan Son Of Shri Nawab Ali, R/o 260/5,
Yadgar Guest House, Tripolia Gate, Ajmer.
18. Mrs. Siraj Baigum Baiwa Mr. Nawab Ali (Deceased), R/o
260/5, Yadgar Guest House, Tripolia Gate, Ajmer.
19. Smt. Shahnaz Baigum, Daughter Of Late. Shri Munshi
Nawab Ali, R/o 260/5, Yadgar Guest House, Tripolia Gate,
Ajmer.
20. Shri Anil Pokharna Son Shri Nandlal Pokharna, Aged
About 54 Years, Resident Of - Opposite Maheshwari
Dharamshala, Kadakka Chowk, Ajmer.
21. Shri Sunil Kumar Pokharna, Son Of Shri Nandlal
Pokharna, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of 501/1,
Rembul Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
07/05/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff against the
order dated 14.02.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, District
Ajmer, in Civil Suit No.33/2008 whereby, an application filed by
the respondents/defendants raising objection against exhibiting an
unregistered agreement to sell dated 03.01.2006, has been
allowed.
(3 of 4) [CW-6168/2022]
The facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit
for declaration as to his ownership over the said property on the
strength of an agreement to sale dated 03.01.2006. When the
agreement was sought to be tendered in evidence by her, the
respondents/defendants raised an objection thereagainst it being
unregistered. The objection has been allowed by the learned trial
Court vide its order dated 14.02.2022, impugned herein.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that once the agreement was properly stamped, the
learned trial Court erred in not permitting her to get it exhibited in
evidence merely because it was unregistered. He, in support of his
submission, relied upon a co-ordinate Bench order of this Court in
case of Munvvar Hussain vs. Kishori Bai Koli & Anr.:2022(1) RRT 9.
Heard. Considered.
It is trite law that except as provided under proviso of
Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document
affecting immovable property and required by the Registration Act
to be registered, shall not be admissible in evidence. Indisputably,
the suit filed by the petitioner is for declaration of her title qua
said property on the basis of the subject agreement to sale which
is unregistered. Since, the suit/purpose does not satisfy the
requirement of proviso to Section 49, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in not permitting the
petitioner to exhibit the same in evidence.
The judgment of this Court in case of Munvvar (supra) is of
no help to the petitioner inasmuch as therein the suit was for
specific performance.
(4 of 4) [CW-6168/2022]
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed being
devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
LAKSHYA/51
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
