Krishna @ Krishnakumar vs Smt. Vaijantibai & Others

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.9.2019 passed by the Additional Civil

Judge, Khetiya, District-Badwani in Civil Suit No.23-A/2018 whereby the objection raised by the respondent/defendant with respect to exhibiting the

document has been allowed and the documents are not taken on record.

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the respondent/defendant for declaration and partition. According to plaint, the schedule of the

properties mentioned in the plaint are in the name of father of the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3. The respondent/defendant has filed the written

statement and the denied the averments made in the plaint. The petitioner has therefore, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. for

taking the documents with respect to partition on record. The said application was allowed by the court below vide order dated 17.9.2017 and the

partition deed dated 13.6.2016 is taken on record. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and his cross-

examination was commenced on 17.9.2019. During the course of the cross-examination of the petitioner, he has exhibited the partition deed in

evidence. Objection was raised by the respondent/defendant regarding admissibility of the said document. However, the court below has allowed the

objection of the respondent/defendant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, the provisions of Indian Registration Act would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of

the present case. Conclusion drawn by the court below is ex-facie illegal and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He

further submitted that the document in question is not required to be registered. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment passed by the Apex

Court in the case of Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation : reported in 1976 (3) SCC 119.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that, the trial Court has not committed any error in upholding the objection

raised by the respondent. He further submitted that, one Sunandabai and Vaijantabai have relinquished their rights in respect of some property and,

therefore, registration of the document is necessary as per the provision of the Registration Act. He also submitted that, an unregistered document

cannot be seen even it cannot be used for collateral purposes. He relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shantibai and others vs.

Ratnabai and others : reported in 2018 (4) M.P.L.J. 135 as well as the judgment passed in the case of Gordhan s/o Kheemaji Mogiya vs. Dinesh s/o

Champalalji and others: reported in 2017 (4) M.P.L.J. 565.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order passed by the court below.

In the present case, the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration as well as partition. During the course of the cross-examination, the petitioner

has filed an application for taking the document regarding partition deed on record. However, the respondent/defendant has raised an objection

regarding admissibility of the said document. The court below has allowed the objection raised by the respondent/defendant. Being aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, if any property which valued is more than Rs.100/- and by which the right has been transferred and the

said document should be registered and cannot be looked into for collateral purposes also. In the present case, the document in question, one

Sunandabai and Vaijantabai have relinquished their rights in respect of some property. As per Registration Act, the Registration of the document is

necessary and cannot be looked into for collateral purpose also. This Court in the case of Gordhan (supra) has held that, if the document is not

admissible in evidence for want of registration then none of its term can be admitted in evidence. In the case of Shantibai (supra), this Court has held

that if the document is in admissible for want of registration then none of of its term can be admitted in evidence and even it cannot be looked into for

collateral purposes. Thus, the objection raised by the respondent has rightly been allowed by the court below. In such circumstances, no case is made

out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as such.