Safiya Malik

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, Single Bench of Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati, stated that a family partition deed, although unregistered, may be admitted for collateral purposes subject to the payment of applicable stamp duty and penalty. The court allowed the petitioners to place the partition deed on record for limited purposes, thereby setting aside the trial court's refusal to do so.

The judgment was delivered in a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur, wherein the petitioners' application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was only partially allowed. The trial court had declined to admit the partition deed into the record on the ground of it being unregistered.

Also Read: “Limitation Begins from Date of Pronouncement, Not Copy Receipt”: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Says Delay Under IBC Beyond 45 Days Is “Incapable of Condonation”

The writ petition was initiated by the defendants in the original suit, namely Mohammad Salim, Moinuddin, and Mohammad Hasan, all sons of Jamaluddin and residents of Makrana, Nagaur. The private respondent, Abdul Kayyum, also a son of Jamaluddin and resident of Makrana, filed the original civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the Municipal Board, Makrana, restraining it from issuing any Patta related to land situated in Khasra Nos. 388, 388/1, and 388/2 in favor of the petitioners or any other party.

The petitioners, in their written statement, denied the allegations and asserted their rights based on a notarized family partition deed dated 01.08.2011. They later filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to place on record the original partition deed, Nikahnama, and family pedigree certificate (Shijra Khandan). The respondent opposed this application, arguing that the partition deed, being unregistered and exceeding the value of Rs. 100, was inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that while the document may not be admissible for primary evidence due to its unregistered status, it should still be accepted for collateral purposes. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgement in Korukonda Chalapathi Rao and Anr. v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar [LL 2021 SC 530].

The respondent's counsel opposed the application, arguing that the petitioners delayed filing the document for over twelve years without explanation, and reiterated the position that documents involving immovable property valued above Rs. 100 must be registered to be admissible.

The High Court considered the statutory framework under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC, which states:

"A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit."

It noted that the defendants had referenced the notarized partition deed in their written statement and expressed their willingness to produce the original if required. Their application was a step to fulfil this willingness.

The court recorded the trial court's reasoning that the document could not be admitted since it created rights in immovable property and was therefore compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The relevant portion of the statute reads:

"(1) The following documents shall be registered... namely: (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish... any right, title or interest... of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property."

However, the High Court disagreed with the blanket rejection, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sita Ram Bharma v. Ramavtar Bharma: Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2018 which clarified 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... If the appellant-defendant want to mark these documents for collateral purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded..."

Also Read: “Merely Driving an Unregistered Vehicle Without Any Overt Act Cannot Justify Contributory Negligence”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.51 Lakh for 22-Year-Old Amputee

Similarly, the court referenced Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others, (2015) 16 SCC 787, reiterating that an unregistered family arrangement may be admissible for certain collateral issues subject to the payment of necessary duty and penalty.

"The partition deed dated 01.08.2011 can be relied upon to the extent of collateral purpose, subject to payment of stamp duty, penalty, and proof of relevancy," the court stated.

The Rajasthan High Court, accordingly, allowed the writ petition and issued the following order:

"The order impugned dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Original No. 120/12 C.I.S. No. 111/19 is quashed and set aside qua the extent of rejection to take on record the partition deed subject to payment of stamp duty, penalty, proof and relevancy."

The court concluded that the trial court is at liberty to mark the document for collateral purposes after necessary compliance.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Mansoor Ali Siddiqui

For the Respondents: Mr. Avin Chhangani, Ms. Prenal Lodha

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

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:12209

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4561/2025

Bench: Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati

[Read/Download order]