Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Smt. Lehari Bai vs Bhagwan Das Lachhwani And Ors on 9 September, 2021
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14983/2017
Lrs Of Late Smt. Lehari Bai W/o Mohan Lal Balai-
1/1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Balai, Aged 54 Years
1/2. Kanahiya Lal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Balai, Aged 50 Years
1/3. Jagdish S/o Shri Mohan Lal Balai, Aged 47 Years
1/4. Kamla D/o Shri Mohan Lal Balai, Aged 45 Years
1/5. Laali D/o Shri Mohan Lal Balai, Aged 41 Years
1/6. Lakshmi D/o Shri Mohan Lal Balai, Aged 39 Years
1/7. Shanti D/o Mohan Lal Balai, Aged 35 Years
All residents of Near Old Kachahari, Junawas, Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Bhagwan Das Lachhwani S/o Shri Manohar Lal Ji
Lachhwani, Resident Of Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
2. Municipal Council, Bhilwara, Through Its Commissioner,
Municipal Council, Bhilwara.
3. The Director, Department Of Local Self Bodies, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Naveen S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Sindhi, Resident Of
Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
5. Deepak S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Chandra Sindhi,
Resident Of Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Samdariya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order 09/09/2021 This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging order dated 18.09.2017 rejecting application submitted by petitioner-defendant for declaring that sale-deed is not admissible in evidence.
(Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 08:56:32 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-14983/2017] Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit against respondent Nos.1-4. During the pendency of the proceedings before learned trial Court, petitioners were also impleaded as defendant No.5. Thereafter, petitioners-defendant No.5 filed an application before learned trial Court with prayer that it may be ordered that sale-deed dated 21.12.2006 is not admissible in evidence. The said application filed by petitioners-defendant No.5 was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 18.09.2017. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that value of the plot in dispute is more than Rs.100, therefore, it should be registered with the registering authority, however, since sale-deed dated 21.12.2006 is an unregistered and not properly stamped document, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. Counsel further submits that the issue raised by petitioner with regard to admissibility of an unregistered and not properly stamped document should be decided by learned trial Court at the first instance.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Gopal Lal Vs. Shri Tulsi Ram & Ors. being SBCWP No.2370/2013 decided on 09.04.2015.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing order dated 18.09.2017.
Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents, while opposing the writ petition, has submitted that learned trial Court has considered the issue raised by the petitioners with regard to the document in question and held that the suit filed by the (Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 08:56:32 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-14983/2017] plaintiff is of specific performance, and therefore, the said document is covered under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Learned trial Court further held that in suit for specific performance, unregistered document is also admissible in evidence in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Counsel has further submitted that learned trial Court has also framed issue No.5 in this regard which reads:
"vk;k fodz;i= fn- 21-12-2006 vi;kZIr LVkEi ,oa viathd`r gksus ls lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gS] ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk nkos ij D;k izHkko gS\"
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons, firstly, the suit filed by the plaintiff relates to the specific performance. Secondly, the learned trial Court has framed issue No.5 with regard to unregistered sale-deed dated 21.12.2006 and whether the same is admissible in evidence or not and what would be its effect on the suit and the same would be decided at the time of final decision of the suit. Lastly, whether the sale-deed dated 21.12.2006 is not properly stamped in this regard learned trial Court has put a specific condition in the order that admissibility of this document would be depend upon the decision of issue No.5.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J 173-T.Singh/-
(Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 08:56:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)