Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Jayoti Kiran Dubey vs Mahendra Kumar on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8118
1 MP-6177-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6177 of 2025
SMT JAYOTI KIRAN DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
MAHENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Chandra Markan - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra - Senior Advocate with Shri - Prathviraj
Singh Parmar - Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Shri Kushagra Singh - Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, Annexure P-1 passed on applications I.A.Nos.07/2025, 08/2025, 09/2025 filed under Section 33-35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 read with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 whereby the objections raised on non registration and insufficiency of stamps on document Annexure P-4 Sauda Chhitti has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Section 16 of the Registration Act and amendment thereto submits that this Sauda Chhiti Annexure P-4 should have been written at least on 1% of the consideration amount and unless it was so stamped and registered it could not have been Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:16:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8118 2 MP-6177-2025 tendered in evidence. For this he has relied on the order dated 22.08.2023 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Vs. Ramvilas Shukla and others 2023 (2) RN 241 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) 2 SCC 532. On this submission learned counsel assails the impugned order that it is not in accordance with law and prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
3. Per contra learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 relying upon paras 5 and 12 of the order dated 13.04.2023 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.P.No.6310/2022 (Kishanalal Vs. Ashok Kumar) and other connected matters submits that Annexure P-4 Sauda Chhitti has been executed on 09.04.2022 and it doesn't come between dates 02.08.2008 and 15.09.2014 wherein in between whereof documents were required to be executed on 1% of consideration amount. Since this document has been executed beyond 09.04.2022, therefore, it does not require stamp duty of 1% of consideration amount. Further inviting attention of this Court towards the endorsement made by the Collector Stamps on the aforesaid Sauda Chhitti submits that it has been validated by imposing Rs.240/- as penalty and Rs.1,000/- stamp duty and this order is unchallenged, therefore it is still existing and it cannot be assailed. The document will be treated as properly stamped. As far as Section 17 of the Registration Act is concerned, learned senior counsel also refers to proviso of Section 49 wherein it has been mentioned that unregistered document can be made basis for collateral purposes and also for filing suit for specif performance of contract. On these Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:16:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8118 3 MP-6177-2025 submissions learned senior counsel submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in dismissing the application and prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the record it is apparent that Annexure P-4 Sauda Chhitti which was put before Collector Stamps, stamp duty of Rs.1,000/- with penalty of Rs.240/- was imposed and document was validated. Therefore, the contention with regard to insufficiency of stamp is not tenable. As far as objection with regard to registration is concerned, proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act is clear in itself which has not been amended in accordance with amendment incorporated in Section 17 of the Registration Act. Therefore, till date unregistered documents can be made basis for suit for specific performance and that can also be seen for collateral purposes. The objection raised on behalf or the petitioners in this petition are not acceptable, hence discarded. In the aforesaid facts, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners does not come in rescue of the petitioners.
6. In the light of the aforesaid, this petition is devoid of substance fails and is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE RJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:16:09