Dismissed

Pitram S/O Shri Lachhuram Jaat v. Riddh Karan S/O Kishan Lal Nai

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2020CW/738/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an application for registration under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court held the document was a receipt, not an agreement to sell, thus no registration was requisite.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and is dismissed upholding the Trial Court's order.

Pitram S/O Shri Lachhuram Jaat Vs Riddh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 738/2020

¶3

Pitram S/o Shri Lachhuram Jaat, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Godu Ka Bass Post Mandawa Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Riddh Karan S/o Kishan Lal Nai, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Ward No. 17 Mandawa Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶10

Order

¶11

16/01/2020

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1908) has been dismissed.

¶13

Facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/-. On the summon having been received, the defendant put in appearance and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application under Section 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application. The Trial Court vide its order dated 20.11.2019 dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Sections 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908. Hence, this writ petition.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-738/2020]

¶16

Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the agreement to sell dated 7.3.2015, which the plaintiff wanted to exhibit was not properly stamped, therefore, the same was inadmissible in evidence. He has further submitted that according to Section 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908 agreement to sell of any property valuing more than Rs. 100/- is required to be registered. In the purported agreement dated 7.3.2015, shop in question was valued at Rs. 20,00,000/-, for which Rs. 2,00,000/- were stated to be received. The said agreement being unregistered, was inadmissible in evidence.

¶17

Heard. Considered.

¶18

From the material evidence on record, it is evident that the suit was filed for recovery of money and not for specific performance of the agreement. Furthermore, Annexure-1 purported agreement evinces that it is not an agreement, but it is simply a writing with regard to receipt, which was not required to be registered. The said receipt can be exhibited for collateral purposes.

¶19

In this view of the matter, the Trial Court rightly rejected the defendant’s application under Sections 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court in its order dated 20.11.2019 while dismissing the defendant’s application.

¶20

There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CW-738/2020]

¶23

The petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶24

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶25

DILIP KHANDELWAL /23

Pitram S/O Shri Lachhuram Jaat v. Riddh Karan S/O Kishan Lal Nai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitram S/O Shri Lachhuram Jaat v. Riddh Karan S/O Kishan Lal Nai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardeva S/O Ramsukha Vs Radheshyam S/O Ramniwas

Ghuda Ram S/O Bhuraram Vs Sugan

Pankaj Kumawat S/O Shri Mangal Chand Kumawat B/C Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashik Ali Vs Smt Sampati Devi and Ors.

Reena W/O Late Devendra Vs Nandkishore S/O Dhanna Lal

Jagmohan Prasad Agarwal @ Dr. J.M. Agarwal S/O Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta Vs Surendra Singh S/O Late Shri Laxman Singh