1 WP No.

4209 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 3rd OF OCTOBER, 2023

MISC. PETITION No. 4209 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
JAGDISH VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI LADLE
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
1.
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O WARD NO. 9, SATAI,
TEHSIL BIJAWAR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P)
RAM KISHORE VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI LADLE
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
2.
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O WARD NO.9 SATAI
TEHSIL BIJAWAR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SMT. TULIKA GULATEE -ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. JULEKHA AHMED W/O SIRAJ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER
1.
R/O VILLAGE SATAI, TEHSIL BIJAWAR,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P)
ISRAAR AHMED S/O SIRAJ AHMED, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER
2.
VILLAGE SATAI TEHSIL BIJAWAR DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (M.P)
CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR
3. PANCHAYAT SATAI TEHSIL BIJAWAR DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (M.P)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHD. RIYAZ -ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
AND 2, SHRI ARVIND KUMAR PATHAK -ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3 )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER

Parties agree to argue this matter, accordingly, it is finally heard.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 2 WP No.4209 of 2023

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India assailing the order dated 08.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by
the Civil Judge Class-II, Bijawar, Chattarpur in pending civil suit i.e
R.C.S No.6/2018. As per the order passed the trial court, the document
that is said to be a sale deed dated 10.02.1985, which was unregistered
document produced during the course of evidence, but an objection
was raised by the defendant about admissibility of the said document
and also raised an objection that the document needs to be registered
because the value of property, which is subject matter of the sale deed
was more than Rs.100/-. The Court has taken cognizance of the same
and observed that if document is not properly stamped as per section
49 of Evidence Act, the same cannot be taken into evidence. Although,
plaintiff in response to objection raised by the respondent, requested
the Court that the said document can be sent to the Collector of Stamps
for impounding and after getting it impounded, the same can be taken
on record, it become admissible. The Court has accepted the request,
taking note of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and also took
note of section 49 of the Evidence Act observing that the sale deed
dated 10.02.1985 is not registered and also not properly stamped. The
objection raised by the defendant is accordingly rejected, directing that
the said document i.e sale deed dated 10.02.1985 be sent for proper
stamping and it can also be taken into evidence for collateral purpose.
3. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the
unregistered documents which was required to be registered as per
section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 cannot be taken into evidence
for collateral purpose. She has also placed reliance on order dated 04th
July, 2022 passed by this Court in W.P No.7581 of 2017 (Manish

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 3 WP No.4209 of 2023

Singh Malukani & others Vs. Hari Prasad Gupta & others).
4. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 opposed the
submissions made by counsel for petitioner and submits that the
petition deserves to be dismissed for the reason that prior to passing of
order dated 08.07.2023 directing the document i.e sale deed dated
10.02.1985 can be used for collateral purpose on evidence has already
impounded and that order has not been brought into knowledge of the
Court and petitioner has also not challenged that order of the Court,
therefore, at this stage, challenging the said sale deed saying that it is
not properly stamped is not proper on the part of the
petitioner/defendant. He submits that under such circumstance, the
Court did nothing wrong and rightly allowed the application and
permitted plaintiff to use the said sale deed for collateral purpose.
5. I have heard submissions made by the parties and also
perused the record. From the order of the Court, which is impugned in
this petition, it is clear that there is no mention about impounding
document sale deed 10.02.1985, which was undisputedly unregistered
document. First of all the sale deed dated 10.02.1985 did not get
registered within the time as per section 23 of the Registration Act,
1908. The said document cannot be sent for impounding and it is
merely a piece of paper, if any order has been passed by the Court
sending the said document to the Collector of Stamp for impounding.
The said order of the Court does not make the sale deed valid and even
after impounding the said document, does not get a shape of the sale
deed, which can be used in evidence for collateral purpose. The sale
deed, which was unregistered dated 10.02.1985 in my opinion is
merely a piece of paper that can't be sent for impounding and even

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 4 WP No.4209 of 2023

otherwise putting stamp over there, which was required at the time of
getting the said document registered, the said document cannot be
validated and cannot be given a shape of sale deed even by the
Collector of Stamps.
6. Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides
the period under which it is required to be registered otherwise not.
Section 23 of the Registration Act reads as under:-
Section 23 in The Registration Act, 1908
23. Time for presenting documents.—Subject to the
provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document
other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless
presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four
months from the date of its execution: Provided that a copy a
of a decree or order may be presented within four months from
the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is
appealable, within four months from the day on which it
becomes final.
7. Admittedly, in the present case, the sale deed dated
10.02.1985 has never been put for registration within given time as per
section 23 of the Act of 1908. Accordingly, the said document cannot
be registered after such long period and merely because the Court has
sent the said document for impounding the sale deed cannot be
considered to be a sale deed or registered sale deed in the eyes of law.
Under such a circumstance, and the view taken by this Court in case of
Manish (supra), which reads as under:-.

“6. The Privy Council in AIR (33) 1946 Privy Council 51

[Ram Rattan v. Parma Nand] while dealing with Section 35 of the Act,
1899 has observed that the words ‘for any purpose’ include collateral
purpose and held that unstamped deed of partition cannot be used to
corroborate oral evidence as to factum of partition. The Privy Council

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 5 WP No.4209 of 2023

has observed as under:-

“The words ‘for any purpose’ in S.35, Stamp Act, should be given
their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral
purpose. Where an unstamped document is admitted in proof of
some collateral matter it is certainly admitted in evidence for that
purpose which the Statute has prohibited. Consequently an
unstamped partition-deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral
evidence for the purposes of determining even the factum of
partition as distinct from its terms.”

7. The Supreme Court in a case reported (2009) 2 SCC 532

[Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra] after
considering the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, 1899 has observed
that any document if not duly stamped is inadmissible even for collateral
purpose. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the
case of Bondar Singh (supra) in paragraph-23 has observed as under:-

“23. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant

that the document was admissible for collateral purpose, in our
opinion, is not correct. In Bondar Singh [(2003) 4 SCC 161] this
Court was not concerned with the provisions of the Act. Only
interpretation of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 was
in question. It was opined : (SCC p. 163, para 5)
“5. The main question, as we have already noted, is
the question of continuous possession of the plaintiffs over
the suit lands. The sale deed dated 9-5-1931 by Fakir
Chand, father of the defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, is an admitted
document in the sense its execution is not in dispute. The
only defence set up against the said document is that it is
unstamped and unregistered and therefore it cannot convey
title to the land in favour of the plaintiffs. Under the law a
sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered
before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal
position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in
the present case, even though not admissible in evidence,
can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the present
case the collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not illegal
or unauthorized”

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 6 WP No.4209 of 2023

Further, the Supreme Court in the said case in paragraphs-24 to 29

has observed as under:-

“24. In the present case, by reason of the statutory interdict,

no transfer at all is permissible. Even transfer of possession is also
not permissible. (See Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu [1992
Supp (2) SCC 77] and Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur
Prajapati [(2004) 10 SCC 65].) The Registration Act, 1908
provides for such a contingency in terms of the proviso appended
to Section 49 thereof, which reads as under:
“49. Effect of non-registration of documents
required to be registered.—
No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall
—
(a) affect any immovable property comprised
therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction
affecting such property or conferring such power,
unless it has been registered:
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 (1 of 1877) or as
evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected
by registered instrument.”
25. Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability
of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a
document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose
whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be
brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to
how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes.
26. The view we have taken finds support from the
decision of the Privy Council in Ram Rattan v. Parma Nand
[(1945-46) 73 IA 28 : AIR 1946 PC 51] wherein it was held :
(AIR p. 52)
“[That] the words ‘for any purpose’ in Section 35 of
the Stamp Act, should be given their natural meaning and
effect and would include a collateral purpose [and that] an

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 7 WP No.4209 of 2023

unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the

oral evidence for the purposes of determining even the
factum of partition as distinct from its terms.”
The said decision has been followed in a large number of
decisions by the said Court.
27. In Bhaskarabhotla Padmanabhaiah v. B.
Lakshminarayana [AIR 1962 AP 132] it has been held : (AIR p.
134, para 9)
“9. In this case, the learned Subordinate Judge has
observed that what the plaintiff was trying to prove was not
the division in status but to show that the property was
divided under the partition deed. In any case, the fact that
the document is inadmissible due to want of being stamped
is clear. For, in Ram Rattan v. Parma Nand [(1945-46) 73 IA
28 : AIR 1946 PC 51] Their Lordships of the Privy Council
held that the words ‘for any purpose’ in Section 35 of the
Stamp Act should be given their natural meaning and effect
and would include a collateral purpose and that an
unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the
oral evidence for the purpose of determining even the
factum of partition as distinct from its terms.”
It was furthermore held : (Bhaskarabhotla case [AIR 1962 AP
132] , AIR p. 134, para 10)
“10. In the result, I agree with the learned Munsif
Magistrate that the document is ‘an instrument of partition’
under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act and it is not
admissible in evidence because it is not stamped. But, I
further hold that if the document becomes duly stamped,
then it would be admissible in evidence to prove the
division in status but not the terms of the partition.”
28. In Sanjeeva Reddi v. Johanputra Reddi [AIR 1972 AP
373] it has been held : (AIR p. 375, para 9)
“9. While considering the scope of Section 35 of the
Stamp Act we cannot bring in the effect of non-registration
of a document under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Section 17 of the Registration Act deals with documents, the
registration of which is compulsory and Section 49 is
concerned only with the effect of such non-registration of
the documents which require to be registered by Section 17
or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act. The
effect of non-registration is that such a document shall not
affect any immovable property covered by it or confer any

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 8 WP No.4209 of 2023

power to adopt and it cannot be received as evidence of any

transaction affecting such property or conferring such
power. But there is no prohibition under Section 49 to
receive such a document which requires registration to be
used for a collateral purpose i.e. for an entirely different and
independent matter. There is a total and absolute bar as to
the admission of an unstamped instrument whatever be the
nature of the purpose or however foreign or independent the
purpose may be for which it is sought to be used, unless
there is compliance with the requirements of the provisos to
Section 35. In other words if an unstamped instrument is
admitted for a collateral purpose, it would amount to
receiving such a document in evidence for a purpose which
Section 35 prohibits. There is nothing in B. Rangaiah v. B.
Rangaswamy [(1970) 2 AnWR 181] which supports the
contention of the petitioner. That was a case as pointed out
by Kuppuswami, J., where there were two instruments
though contained in one document, one a settlement in
favour of the fourth defendant therein and the other a will. It
was therefore held that part of the instrument which
constitutes a will did not require any stamp and will be
admissible in evidence for proving the bequest contained
therein. It was for that reason that the learned Judge said
that Section 35 of the Stamp Act has no application to a case
where one of the separate instruments relating to one such
matter would not at all be chargeable under the Act as in the
case before him.”
29. In T. Bhaskar Rao v. T. Gabriel [AIR 1981 AP 175] it
has been held : (AIR p. 177, para 5)
“5. Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that an
instrument chargeable with duty should be stamped so as to
make it admissible in evidence. Proviso (a) to Section 35 of
the Stamp Act enables a document to be received in
evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty if the
document is chargeable, but not stamped or on payment of
deficit duty and penalty, if it is insufficiently stamped. The
bar against the admissibility of an instrument which is
chargeable with stamp duty and is not stamped is of course
absolute whatever be the nature of the purpose, be it for
main or collateral purpose, unless the requirements of
proviso (a) to Section 35 are complied with. It follows that
if the requirements of proviso (a) to Section 35 are satisfied,
then the document which is chargeable with duty, but not
stamped, can be received in evidence.”

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 9 WP No.4209 of 2023

It was further held : (Gabriel case [AIR 1981 AP 175], AIR

p. 177, para 7)
“7. It is now well settled that there is no prohibition
under Section 49 of the Registration Act, to receive an
unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose.
But the document so tendered should be duly stamped or
should comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the
Stamp Act, if not stamped, as a document cannot be
received in evidence even for collateral purpose unless it is
duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under Section 35
of the Stamp Act.”
(See also Firm Chuni Lal Tukki Mal v. Firm Mukat Lal Ram
Chandra [AIR 1968 All 164] and Chandra Sekhar Misra v.
Gobinda Chandra Das [AIR 1966 Ori 18].)”

The Supreme Court again in a case reported in (2014) 1 SCC 618

[Omprakash Vs. Laxminarayan and others] after considering the
scope of Section 35 of the Act, 1899 with regard to inadmissibility of a
document not duly stamped has observed as under:-

12. Section 2(10) of the Act reads as follows:

“2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless there is something
repugnant in subject or context—
* * *
(10) Conveyance.—‘Conveyance’ includes a
conveyance on sale and every instrument by which
property, whether movable or immovable, is transferred
inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically
provided for by Schedule I;”
13. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is
evident that an instrument by which movable or immovable
property is transferred, comes within the expression
“conveyance”. In the present case, an immovable property is
transferred on payment of part of the consideration and handing
over the possession of the property.
14. It is relevant here to state that by the Stamp (Madhya
Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1990 (22 of 1990) a few
articles including Article 23 of Schedule 1-A have been
substituted and Explanation has been added to Article 23. The
Explanation appended to Article 23 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp
Act as substituted by Section 6 of Act 22 of 1990 reads as follows:

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 10 WP No.4209 of 2023

“Explanation.—For the purpose of this article, where

in the case of agreement to sell immovable property, the
possession of any immovable property is transferred to the
purchaser before execution or after execution of, such
agreement without executing the conveyance in respect
thereof then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to be a
conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be leviable
accordingly:
Provided that, the provisions of Section 47-A shall
apply mutatis mutandis to such agreement which is
deemed to be a conveyance as aforesaid, as they apply to a
conveyance under that section:
Provided further that where subsequently a conveyance
is effected in pursuance of such agreement of sale the
stamp duty, if any, already paid and recovered on the
agreement of sale which is deemed to be a conveyance
shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the
conveyance, subject to a minimum of Rs 10.”
The aforesaid Explanation has come into effect with effect from
26-9-1990. The Explanation, therefore, creates a legal fiction. The
agreement to sell shall be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp
duty is leviable on an instrument whereby possession has been
transferred. Thus the agreement to sell in question is a conveyance
within the meaning of Section 2(10) of the Act and is to be duly
stamped.
15. Section 35 of the Act makes instruments not duly
stamped inadmissible in evidence, the relevant portion whereof
reads as follows:
“35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in
evidence, etc.—No instrument chargeable with duty shall
be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person
having by law or consent of parties authority to receive
evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or
authenticated by any such person or by any public officer,
unless such instrument is duly stamped:
Provided that—
(a) any such instrument shall be admitted in
evidence on payment of the duty with which the
same is chargeable or, in the case of an instrument
insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to
make up such duty, together with a penalty of five
rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 11 WP No.4209 of 2023

duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five

rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or
portion;”
16. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is
evident that an authority to receive evidence shall not admit any
instrument unless it is duly stamped. An instrument not duly
stamped shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty
with which the same is chargeable or in the case of an instrument
insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such
duty together with penalty. As we have observed earlier, the deed
of agreement having been insufficiently stamped, the same was
inadmissible in evidence. The court being an authority to receive a
document in evidence to give effect thereto, the agreement to sell
with possession is an instrument which requires payment of the
stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Duty as required,
has not been paid and, hence, the trial court rightly held the same
to be inadmissible in evidence.”

8. In a case reported in I.L.R. [2013] M.P., 2904 [Malti Bai

(Smt.) Vs. Smt. Khilona Bahu & ors.], this Court after considering the
scope of Section 35 of the Act, 1899 has observed as under:-

“12. Now, I may advert to document (Exhibit P-2) dated

6.1.1986. The aforesaid document is written on plain paper. It is
neither stamped nor registered. It is executed by Ratanlal i.e.
Karta of the family. Under the said document, possession of two
acres of land comprised in khasra number 68 has been given to the
plaintiff on 6.1.1986 i.e. on the day of execution of the document.
The document has been styled as an agreement. In Ram Rattan v.
Parama Nand, AIR 1946 PC 51 while construing the words ‘for
any purpose’ in Section 35 of the Act, it was held that words ‘for
any purpose’ in Section 35 of the Stamp Act should be given their
natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose
and that an unstamped partition deed cannot be used to
corroborate the oral evidence for the purpose of determining even
the factum of partition as distinct from its terms. Similar view has
been taken by the Supreme Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan v.
Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532. In view of the aforesaid
enunciation of law, even if the document (Exhibit P-2) is treated
to be an ‘instrument’, ‘agreement’ or ‘settlement’, the same cannot
be read in evidence for any purpose and thus, the entire
foundation of the claim of the plaintiff collapses. Accordingly, the
6th substantial question of law is answered in the negative and
against the appellant.”

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 12 WP No.4209 of 2023

9. Recently, this Court in a case reported in 2022 (1) M.P.L.J.

315 [Gangashankar Dubey Vs. Sindhu Bai and others] after taking
note of Section 35 of the Act, 1899 and also of Sections 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act, 1908 has observed as under:-

“8. In order to resolve the controversy, it is appropriate

to extract the relevant provisions of Sections 17(1)(b) and 49 of
the Act of 1908 which read as under :
“17. Documents of which registration is
compulsory.—(l) The following documents shall be
registered, if the property to which they relate is
situate in a district in which, and if they have been
executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI
of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the
Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian
Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes
into force, namely:- (a) xxxxxxx;
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which
purport or operate to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish, whether in
present or in future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or contingent,
of the value of one hundred rupees and
upwards, to or in immovable property;
(c) xxxxxxx;
(d) xxxxxxx;
(e) xxxxxxx;
49. Effect of non-registration of documents
required to be registered.—No document required
by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered
shall—
(a) affect any immovable property comprised
therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any
transaction affecting such property or
conferring such power, unless it has
been registered:

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 13 WP No.4209 of 2023

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.”
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R.Saha and
Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant, reported in 2008
MPLJ Online (SC) 20=2008 (8) SCC 564, with regard to
admissibility of unregistered document, has held as under :
1. A document required to be registered, if
unregistered, is not admissible into evidence
under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can be used as an
evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the
Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of,
or divisible from, the transaction to effect which,
the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not
itself required to be effected by a registered
document, that is, a transaction creating, any
right, title or interest in immovable property of
value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for
want of registration, none of its terms can be
admitted in evidence and that to use a document
for the purpose of proving an important clause
would not be using it as a collateral purpose.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Avinash Kumar Chauhan (supra) has held that an unstamped or
insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted in evidence
for any purpose including for collateral purposes. However, such
document can be received in evidence on payment of deficit duty
and penalty in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899.
11. In order to deal with different propositions, it may
be safely concluded in the light of the above legal position as

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 14 WP No.4209 of 2023

under :
(i). The admissibility of a particular document in
evidence is to be adjudged in light of the relevant
provisions of the Act of 1908 as well as of the
Indian Stamp Act 1899.
(ii). As per the provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the
Act of 1908, an unregistered document which is
compulsorily registerable cannot be admitted in
evidence except in a suit for specific performance of
contract or as evidence of any collateral transaction,
not required to be effected by registered instrument.
(iii). The collateral purpose for which, unregistered
document is intended to be tendered in evidence,
must be `independent of' or `divisible from' the very
object and purpose of such document for which, it is
executed.
(iv). No unregistered document which is compulsorily
registerable can be admitted in evidence in the name
of collateral purpose which would essentially tend to
affect the right, title and interest of the parties for
which, such document is executed;
(v). An unstamped or insufficiently stamped document
which is required to be stamped cannot be admitted
in evidence for any purpose including collateral
purpose. However, such document can be tendered
in evidence after payment of deficit stamp duty and
penalty as adjudicated by Collector (Stamps) under
the provisions of The Indian Stamp Act 1899 subject
to it's admissibility under the provisions of the Act
of 1908;
(vi). If an unregistered document which is compulsorily
registerable is found to be inadmissible in evidence
under Section 49 of the Act of 1908, the same
cannot be admitted in evidence even if, it is duly
stamped as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”

10. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, I am of the

opinion that the case relied by learned counsel for the petitioner so also
the submission advanced would not help him for the reason that the
Supreme Court in number of cases has held that as per Sections 17 and
49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and as per Section 35 of the Act, 1899, if

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM
 15 WP No.4209 of 2023

any document is unstamped or unregistered, the same is inadmissible and

cannot be used even for collateral purpose.

11. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the

trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which
warrants any interference in a petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

12. Thus, the petition filed by the petitioners being sans merit,
is hereby dismissed.”

8. I find that the order passed by the Court below which is

impugned in this petition is not sustainable in the eyes of law,
accordingly the order dated 08.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
Civil Judge Class-II, Bijawar, Chattarpur in pending civil suit i.e R.C.S
No. 6/2018 is set aside. However, counsel for the plaintiff is at liberty
to move appropriate application before the court below for refund of
the stamp which is already paid by him for the purpose of impounding
the sale deed that too as per the order of the trial court. If any
application is moved the court below shall consider and decide the
same in accordance with law.

9. With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE

tarun/

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
5:10:37 PM