Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors vs Lrs Of Nand Lal & Ors on 5 July, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
..
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12470 / 2016.
1. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Late Satya Narayan Ji Laddha, Aged
About 71 Years, 11/164, Azad Mohalla, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara
2. Jagdish Chandra S/o Late Satya Narayan Ji Laddha, Aged
About 54 Years, 11/164, Azad Mohalla, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara
3. Ram Niwas S/o Late Satya Narayan Ji Laddha, Aged About
43 Years, 11/164, Azad Mohalla, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara
4. Ram Prasad S/o Late Satya Narayan Ji Laddha, Aged About
41 Years, 11/164, Azad Mohalla, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara
5. Smt. Krishna Kothari W/o Bhagwati Lal Ji Kothari D/o Satya
Narayan Ji Laddha, Aged About 49 Years, Kareda, Tehsil-
Mandal, District-bhilwara
6. Smt. Bhagwati Devi W/o Satya Narayan Ji D/o Satya
Narayan Ji Laddha, Aged About 47 Years, Bassi, Tehsil &
District-chittorgarh
7. Smt. Anita W/o Dinesh Chandra Ji Bordia D/o Satya Narayan
Ji Laddha, Aged About 45 Years, Gandhi Chowk, Chittorgarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Nand Lal S/o Late Daulat Ram Ji Laddha, Since Deceased
Through His Legal Representatives , Since deceased through
legal representatives-
(2 of 4)
[CW-12470/2016]
1/1. Smt.shakuntala Kakani Wd/o Late Subhash Ji Kakani,
D/o Late Nand Lal Ji Laddha, Shahpura Mohalla, Chand
Gate, Beawar, District-Ajmer
1/2. Ramesh Chandra Laddha S/o Late Nand Lal Ji Laddha,
Bazar No.02, Opposite Khetawat Market, Near Vijay
Hotel,Bhilwara
1/3. Jugal Kishore Laddha S/o Late Nand Lal Ji Laddha,
11/164, Azad Mohalla, Bhilwara
1/4. Smt. Madhu Laddha W/o Manoj Ji Ajmera D/o Late Nand
Lal Ji Laddha, House No. 55, Subhash Nagar
Extension,opposite UIT, Bhilwara
1/5. Suresh Laddha S/o Late Nand Lal Ji Laddha, 11/164,
Azad Mohalla, Bhilwara
2. Nathus Lal S/o Late Daulat Ram Ji Laddha, Near Bus Stand,
Shri Ram Khad Beej Bhandar, Gangapur, District-bhilwara
3. Subhash Laddha S/o Late Daulat Ram Ji Laddha, Jai Shree
Tea Company, Station Road, Bhilwara
4. Bhagwati Lal Laddha S/o Late Daulat Ram Ji Laddha, 11/164,
Azad Mohalla, Bhilwara
5. Smt. Jamna Bai W/o Jamna Lal Ji Kabra D/o Late Daulat Ram
Ji Laddha, 64-b-, Pratap Nagar Chittorgarh
6. Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Chhagan Lal Ji Samriya D/o Late Daulat
Ram Ji Laddha, Surajpol Gate, Near Bus Stand, Bhinder,
District-udaipur
7. The Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara
----Respondents
(3 of 4)
[CW-12470/2016]
..
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Babel.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bheemkant Vyas.
Mr. V.N. Kalla.
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
05/07/2017
BY THE COURT:
By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.08.2016 whereby, the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bhilwara (for short, "learned trial Court") has refused the parties to lead evidence in relation to the document, a family settlement dated 11.10.2005 executed between the parties, as, according to the Court below, the document required registration.
After arguing the matter for quite some time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Babel, dropped his arguments in relation to the compulsory requirement of registration of the document under consideration namely, the family settlement dated 11.10.2005, while seeking leave to raise grounds in relation thereto, in an appeal, if required to be filed by the petitioners against the final judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
He, however, in the alternative submitted that the document in question be permitted to be relied upon for co-lateral purposes, as permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 for (4 of 4) [CW-12470/2016] which, he is prepared to pay the requisite stamp duty, payable on it.
In the facts of the present case, the liberty prayed for is granted. The petitioner is permitted to raise ground in relation to the requirement of registration qua the document dated 11.10.2005 or effect of the interlocutory order dated 30.08.2016, in an appeal, if required to be filed against the final judgment and decree.
If the petitioner does not have the original of the family settlement dated 11.10.2005, he may, however, furnish a photocopy thereof before the learned trial Court for the purpose of determination of the Stamp Duty. The learned trial Court would impound and transmit the same to the Collector (Stamps) for adjudication of the proper stamp duty thereupon. It is clarified that mere payment of the stamp duty on the photocopy of the document in question shall not by itself render the document, family settlement dated 11.10.2005, admissible in evidence and the same shall be subject to the requirement of law, including, the provisions as contained under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act.
With the observations foregoing, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
/Mohan/58