Full Judgment
Being aggrieved by the order dated 21/10/2011 passed by Civil Judge class-I, Sailana, District Ratlam in civil suit NO.1-A/ 11 whereby the objections raised by the petitioner about admissibility of the documents Annexures A/3 to A/5 were rejected, the present petition has been filed.
Short facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance alleging that suit property was sold by the petitioner to respondent No.1 orally. Suit was contested by the petitioner. At the stage of evidence, 3 documents were filed by the respondent No.1 in evidence, upon which objection was raised by the petitioner about admissibility of the document. The objections were rejected, against which the present petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially the case of respondent No.1 was that suit property was sold by the petitioner to respondent No.1 orally. Thereafter at the stage of evidence it was alleged that respondent NO.1 has leased out the suit property to different agriculturists vide document dated 1/6/99, 1/6/2001 and 1/6/2005 which are Annexures A/3, A/4 and A/5. The objections raised by the petitioner is to the effect that since the documents are not registered and also not duly stamped therefore same is inadmissible in evidence. The objections raised by the petitioner were rejected, hence this petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order passed by the learned court below is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that all the three documents are neither properly stamped nor duly registered. Since lease period is more than 1 year, therefore same is required to be registered. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Kapoor Chand Vs. Choudhari Prasanna Kumar, 1994(II) MPWN 204 wherein this court has held that “lease deed requiring registration cannot be looked even for collateral purposes.” Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sushila Bai Vs. Kesar Bai, 2010(1) MPLJ 167 wherein this court has held that in a case where Patta of suit land executed by Bhumiswami for indefinite period and the document was compulsorily registrable in view of section 17(1)(d) of Registration Act.
Learned counsel submits that in view of aforesaid position of law, the impugned order passed by learned court below is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that right from the beginning the case of respondent No.1 is that respondent No.1 has purchased the suit property orally. It is submitted that documents were filed by the respondent No.1 to show that respondent No.1 is in possession of the suit land and he has given the said land on lease to different agriculturist vide documents Annx.A/3 to A/5. Learned counsel submits that even if those documents are not properly stamped, then too it is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose. Learned counsel further submits that it is wrong to say that documents are inadmissible in evidence because the suit land is the agricultural land and for that purpose neither lease deed is required to be stamped nor registration is necessary and for that, learned court below has relied on section section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as under :-
S.117- Exemption of leases for agricultural purposes -
None of the provisions of this chapter apply to leases for agricultural purpose, except in so far as the State Government may by notification published in the Official Gazette declare all or any of such provisions to be so applicable.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Thakur Kishan Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 73 wherein Hon. Apex Court has held that “Agricultural lease is specifically excluded from operation of Act.” Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Atar Singh Vs. Jiledar Singh, AIR 2005 MP 157 wherein this court has held that “Agricultural lease does not require registration.
It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
From perusal of record it is evident that documents Ex.A/3 to A/5 were tendered in evidence to prove the possession of respondent No.1. In the matter of Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh (2003) 4 SCC 161 Hon. Apex Court has held that even unstamped and unregistered sale deed which does not convey title to the vendee and not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the matter of K.B.Saha Vs. Development Consultant Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 564 while considering the proviso of section 49(c) of the Registration Act, Hon. Apex Court has observed that “non registration of document required to be registered is inadmissible in evidence, however it can be used as evidence for collateral transaction/purpose. In the matter of Sikkender Anees Vs. Vaiyalimuthu Thevar in C.M.P.No.2580/2006, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Bondar Singh(supra) held that even the document which has not been sufficiently stamped and registered could be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose.
From perusal of the impugned order it appears that learned court below while rejecting the objections has left the question open about the admissibility of documents at the time of evidence. In view of this, this court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. Petition has no merits and the same stands dismissed.