1W.P No. 11892/2015 6.10.2015 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for respondent. Petitioner/defendant calls in question the order dated 23.6.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 42 A/2012; whereby the Trial Court has declined to admit the instrument in question, i.e., Ikrarnama dated 30.6.2008 and undated Sahmati Patra in evidence on the ground that though it record of relinquishment of right in immovable property but are not duly stamped nor registered. Both these instruments are brought on record as Annexure P-3 and P-4. The relevant paragraph, पण्मण्ए चंतंहतंची 1 व िपतंतदंउं तमबपजमेरू यह कि, प्रथम पक्ष कमल कुमार ताम्रकार आत्मज श्री बालगोविंद ताम्रकार आज दिनांक 30.06.08 तक व्यवसायिक नाम शारदा बर्तन भंडार के नाम से हीरागंज कटनी में अपने स्वामित्व में कारोबार कर रहे थे ओर अपने संस्थान के पूणतः स्वामी थे। परन्तु दोनों पक्षों में पारिवारिक विवाद होने के कारण आज दिनांक 30.06.08 से अब द्वितीय पक्ष श्री सुशील कुमार ताम्रकार वल्द बालगोविंद ताम्रकार निवासी हीरागंज इस व्यवसायिक नाम के शारदा बर्तन भंडार संपूर्ण व्यापार के पूर्णतः स्वामी काबिज रहेगें। Whereas the relevant paragraph of ैंीउंजप च्ंजतं तमबपजमे सहमति पत्र लिख दिया मैं कमल कुमार ताम्रकार आत्मज स्व. श्री बालगोविंद ताम्रकार आयु लग 46 साल लगभग निवासी हीरागंज कटनी, जिला कटनी म.प्र. वाले ने बाबत् की कि मेरे और मेरे छोटे भाई सुशील कुमार ताम्रकार आत्मज स्व. श्री बालगोविंद ताम्रकार के स्वामित्व का एक प्लाट ग्राम जोहला पटवारी हल्का नं. 041 नं.बं. 202 ख नं. में स्थित है। उक्त प्लाट मैं एवं मेरे छोटे भाई के नाम से शामिल सरीख खाते में दर्ज हैं एवं राजस्व रिकाडर्ों में भी मेरा एवं मेरे छोटे भाई का नाम दर्ज है। और उक्त प्लाट का नामांतरण भी हो चुका है। यह कि चूंॅकि मेरे परिवार एवं मेरे छोटे भाई के मध्य आपसी पारिवारिक बॅंटवारा लिखित में हो चुका है, और मुझे बंॅटवारे के अनुसार अपना हक मिल गया है। अतः मैं इस सहमति पत्र के माध्यम से शामिल सरीख उपरोक्त प्लाट 2जो ग्राम जोहला में स्थित है से अपना नाम काटने हेतु सहमति देता हॅूं। आज से मेरा उक्त प्लाट में कोई स्वामित्व नहीं रहेगा। केवल उक्त प्लाट में मेरे छोटे भाई सुशील कुमार ताम्रकार का ही स्वामित्व रहेगा। The Trial Court dwelling upon the Ikrarnama observes that Ikrarnama records relinquishment of rights by respondent/plaintiff in favour of petitioner No. 2/defendant and rightly so as in so many terms the recital records the transfer of title over the immovable property as well as the business in favour of petitioner No. 2 by respondent/plaintiff. In respect of Sahmati Patra the Trial Court observes: परंतु इस सहमति पत्र में यह उल्लेख नहीं है कि दोनों पक्षों के बीच बंटवारे के लिये कौन सी सम्पत्ति थी। उसमें से कमल कुमार तांब्रकार को कौन सी सम्पत्ति प्राप्त हुई थी, जिसके बदले में उसने वर्तमान सम्पत्ति से अपना नाम और हक समाप्त किये जाने के लिये सहमति पत्र का निष्पादन किया था। The finding by Trial Court in respect of Sahmati Patra regarding the relinquishment of right in the property also cannot be doubted. Since both the instruments lead to relinquishment of right over the immovable property costs more than 100 rupees it is compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Besides it also does not bear the proper stamp duty. Section 35 of the Stamp Act prohibits admissibility of instrument not duly stamped in evidence. The contention of of learned counsel for the petitioner that the instruments can be used for collateral purpose also cannot be acceded to because of specific prayer under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. In this context reference can be had of decision in Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra. [(2009) 2 SCC 532]; wherein it is held:
24. In the present case, by reason of the statutory interdict, no transfer at all is permissible. Even transfer of possession is also not permissible. [See Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 77 and Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others, (2004) 10 SCC 65]. The Registration Act, 1908 provides for such a contingency in terms of the proviso appended to Section 49 thereof, which reads as under :- 3"49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. - No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall - (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered : Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument."
25. Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision 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, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes.
26. The view we have taken finds support from the decision of the Privy Council in Ram Rattan v. Parmananad, [AIR 1946 PC 51] wherein it was held :- "[That] the words 'for any purpose' in Section 35 of the Stamp Act should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose [and that] an unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for the purpose of determining even the factum of partition as distinct from its terms." Considered thus the denial by the Trial Court to admit unstamped, unregistered instruments in question in evidence cannot be faulted with. In view whereof petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi