Ghulam Ahmad filed a revision petition against the order of the Sub-Registrar, Munsiff Srinagar, regarding the admissibility of a document dated 14th Baisakh 2008 (B).
The document in question was presented along with the plaintiff's plaint and referred to in a paragraph.
The defendant argued that the document was forged and inadmissible due to lack of stamp and registration.
The trial court initially held the document as a memorandum, not requiring registration or stamp duty. Still, this decision was challenged in the High Court where the High court sent back the matter to trial court.
The trial court again upheld its previous judgment. Hence, the present revision is preferred.
ISSUE:
Whether the document dated 14th Baisakh 2008 is admissible in evidence despite not being stamped or registered.
RULE:
Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act requires non-testamentary instruments related to immovable property, which create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest, to be compulsorily registered.
The terms "create," "declare," "limit," and "extinguish" have specific legal meanings and implications.
HELD:
The court analyzed the content of the document, particularly clause (4), which dealt with the division of agricultural land among the parties.
It considered whether the document created, declared, limited, or extinguished any rights in the immovable property.
The court rejected arguments that the document was merely a memorandum or a compromise, emphasizing that it created new rights and obligations regarding the property.
Ghamandi Misser Vs. Jagarnath Misser and Ors (AIR 1938 Pat 212): the true test to determine whether the compromise speaks for the present or refers to a past agreement. If it creates a title claimed and is intended to be the evidence of the agreement, then it requires a declaration of will and must be registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Act.
The court concluded that clause (4) of the document fell under the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, making it compulsorily registrable.
Therefore, the document was deemed inadmissible in evidence to that extent, and the revision petition was accepted with costs.