Unregistered Deed Can Be Placed On Record For Collateral Purposes Subject To Payment Of Stamp Duty, Penalty & Proof Of Relevancy: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Trial Court that did not take on record an unregistered partition deed in a suit for permanent injunction, observing that the petitioner could reply upon the partition deed to the extent for collateral purpose pursuant to payment of stamp duty, penalty and proof of relevancy.

The bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sita Ram Bharma v Ramavtar Bharma and opined that the Apex Court had held that,

“Hon'ble Apex Court also pondered on the aspect that whether a document which is inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose and held that in a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds.”

A suit for permanent injunction was filed against the petitioner, in which a written statement was filed urging rejection of the suit. During its pendency, an application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151, CPC, was filed to bring on record certain documents, including the partition deed.

The Trial Court allowed the application partly but refused to take on record the partition deed on the ground that the same was unregistered. Hence, the petition was filed by the petitioner.

It was the case of the petitioner that the Trial Court did not consider the scope of Order VIII of CPC that empowered the court to take on record the unregistered documents at least for collateral purpose, even though these were inadmissible in evidence.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the records and referred to the aforementioned decision by the Apex Court.

Accordingly, it was held that the partition deed could be relied upon, to the extent of collateral purpose, by the petitioner, subject to payment of the stamp duty, penalty and proof of relevancy.

The petition was allowed, and the decision of the Trial Court to the extent of rejecting taking on record the partition deed was set aside, subject to payment of stamp duty, penalty and proof relevancy by the petitioner.

Title: Mohammad Salim & Ors. v Abdul Kayyum & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 129

Counsel for Petitioner(s): Mr. Mansoor Ali Siddiqui

Counsel for Respondent(s): Mr. Avin Chhangani with Ms. Prenal Lodha

Click Here To Read/Download Order