Judgment:
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of property in dispute on the basis of so-called lease-deed / Patta dt. 15.05.1986 alleged to have been issued by Gram Panchayat, Khori. The suit was contested by the defendants. During the trial of the suit, an objection was raised by the defendants in respect of admissibility of the Patta dt. 15.05.1986 in evidence being unstamped and unregistered and therefore the plaintiff moved an application under Section 11 read with Order 47(1) and Section 151 C.P.C. to admit the said Patta in evidence. The trial Court rejected the said application vide impugned order dt. 26.07.2005. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred this writ petition before this Court.
3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on earlier occasion, the same objection was raised by the defendants in the trial Court and vide order dt. 24.04.1995, the trial Court directed that since the disputed Patta which was impounded earlier, has been received back from Sub-Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Jaipur, and registration fee of Rs. 28/- was payable on it since the same had not been paid, therefore, 10 times penalty along with registration fee, total Rs. 308/- be paid. As per above order, the registration fee as well as penalty amount, both were deposited which is clear from order-sheet of the trial Court dt. 23.05.1995 (Annexure 1) and in such circumstances, the trial Court could not have reviewed its earlier order and committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner and in not admitting the document in evidence. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and document in question be admitted.
4. The respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the writ petition along with one certificate dt. 23.10.2006 (Annexure R-2/1) wherein it has been pleaded that the Patta dt. 15.05.1986 was not issued by the Gram Panchayat, Khori, and the same is forged and fag one. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. It has, further, been pleaded that the document in question is unstamped and unregistered, therefore, the same can not be admitted in evidence.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The real dispute in between both the parties is in respect of the so-called Patta dt. 15.05.1986 alleged to have been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Khori. Initially it was impounded as it was unstamped and unregistered document. However, from the order of the trial Court dt. 24.04.1995, it appears that the plaintiff was directed to deposit the registration fee along with 10 times penalty, which was deposited and the same is clear from the order-sheet dt. 23.05.1995. The objection of defendants is that as per subsequent certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Khori, dt. 23.10.2006 (Annexure R-2/1), the so-called document dt. 15.05.1986 was never issued. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is a settled law that even if the document is unstamped and unregistered, then the same can be looked into at least for collateral purpose. The submission of the respondents is that even if the document in dispute is allowed to be looked into for collateral purpose, then their right to contest their case on the basis that the document is forged one, should be allowed to be raised while contesting the suit.
6. So far as issue as to whether the document which is unstamped and unregistered can be looked into for collateral purpose is concerned, this Court in Roshan Bai Daughter of Shri Ram Chandra v. Madan Lal S/o Shri Bhuralal ILR 2007 (Raj.) 379 has considered the provisions of Transfer of Property Act as well as Registration Act and also the various judgments including one judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh : 2003(4) SCC 161 and held that the document, which is unstamped and unregistered, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purpose. Paras 63 and 64 of Roshan Bai's case (supra) are reproduced as under:
63. Apart from above, various decisions of the various High Courts and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases reported in Kesa v. Ganesh and Ors. 1981 (2) R.C.J.580; Mattapalli Chelamayya v. Mattapalli Venkataratnam : AIR 1972 SC 1121; Lachhmi Narain v. Kalyan : AIR 1960 Rajasthan 1 (Full Bench); Kewalchand v. Smt. Phoolabai 1976 (3) WLN (UC) 265 (Division Bench); Central Bank of India v. Govind Narain : AIR 1971 Rajasthan 306 (Division Bench; and S. Amar Singh v. Surinder Kaur : AIR 1975 Madhya Pradesh 230 (Full Bench), makes it clear that the rent-note (Exhibit-1) was admissible in evidence for collateral purpose to see the nature and character of the possession of the defendant-respondent.
64. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh : (2003) 4 SCC 161, also held that the document, which is unstamped and unregistered, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purpose. The relevant Para 5 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
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 dt. 09.05.1931 by Fakir Chand, father of the defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, is an dmitted document in the sense its execution is not in dispute. The only evidence setup 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....
7. In view of the above, it is held that Patta dt. 15.05.1986 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Khori, will be looked into for collateral purpose. However, it will not deprive the defendants to raise and prove their submissions that the said document is forged one. In case, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the document is forged one, then there is no need to look into this document at all and in case the said document is found to be genuine, then the same be looked into for collateral purpose.
8. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is disposed of in the manner as indicated above. The impugned order dt. 26.07.2005 passed by the trial Court, stands modified accordingly.
9. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.