Indu vs. Narsingh Das (Smt.) & Others AIR 2013 Rajasthan 112
By this petition, the petitioner challenged the validity of order of the trial Court dated 18-10-2011 whereby a document dated 11-05-1969 was accepted for evidence by the trial Court for collateral purpose. As per facts of the case the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit and entire claim was made in the plaint on the basis of a hand-written letter dated 11-05-1969 on a plain paper. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under O.13 R. 3, CPC, read with sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and sections 33 and 35 of Indian Stamps Act before the trial Court.
In the application, it was submitted that document written on plain paper dated 11-05-1969 is neither properly stamped nor registered, therefore, the said document may be rejected. The trial Court allowed the said application filed by the petitioner and document dated 11-05-1969 filed by the plaintiff-respondent was held to be inadmissible in evidence.
The plaintiff-respondent preferred writ petition but the same was dismissed by the Court. However, it was left to the plaintiff-respondent, if he so desired, to make a prayer with regard to admission of the document for collateral purpose before the trial Court The plaintiff-respondent in pursuance of the liberty granted by the Court moved an application before the trial Court praying that the document dated 11-05-1969 may be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes for establishing possession etc. of the plaintiff-respondent over plot.
The trial Court passed an order by which the application filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and document has been admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. The petitioner challenged the said order on the ground that the said document cannot be treated to be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose also because it is not properly stamped and registered as required u/s. 49 of the Registration Act. The trial Court allowed the application ignoring the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 1489. Therefore, it was prayed that the order impugned may be quashed.
The Hon’ble Court observed that upon perusal of the said document, it was revealed that by this document rights have been relinquished in favour of the plaintiff-respondent but, in fact, the said document was not stamped properly nor registered.
The contention that the document was admissible for collateral purpose, was not correct.
Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out admission as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, the document was inadmissible.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the said document is not even admissible for collateral purpose too because in section 35, words “for any purpose whatsoever” have been used. Thus, the purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be a relevant factor for not invoking section 35 of the Registration Act. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order 18-10-2011 was quashed and set aside.
