S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6929/07 Jagdish Prasad vs. Civil Judge (JD), Kuchamancity & ors. 1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6929/07 Jagdish Prasad vs. Civil Judge (JD), Kuchamancity & ors. Date of Order:- 29.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr. SP Sharma for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None present on behalf of the respondents inspite of service. The petitioner in the suit for specific performance of the contract, submitted agreement for sale which has not been admitted by the trial court vide order dated 13.9.2007 after following the decision of this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Keshar v. State of Rajasthan & anr. (RLR 1996(1) 516). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case. In the case of Smt. Kishar (supra), this Court held that the party cannot be allowed to prove terms of unregistered agreement to sell accompanied with possession either by oral evidence or by producing such unregistered agreement which is required under law to be registered. Whereas, this Court in the case of Harjeet v. Megha & ors. (2000 DNJ (Raj.) 449) clearly held that the agreement to sell is compulsorily registrable, yet it can be admitted S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6929/07 Jagdish Prasad vs. Civil Judge (JD), Kuchamancity & ors. 2 in evidence in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and particularly in view of the amendment by Indian Registration (Amendment) Act (No.III) of 1927 and inserting the explanation under Section 17 and in view of clause (v) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 17 which provides as under:- “Any document not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest.” Since this Court in subsequent judgment held that such document is admissible in evidence and particularly in a suit for specific performance of court, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed as the court below wrongly applied the judgment of Smt. Keshar(supra) and wrongly denied the admission of the document to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13.9.2007 is set aside. The document in question is held to be admissible in evidence. (PRAKASH TATIA)J mlt. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6929/07 Jagdish Prasad vs. Civil Judge (JD), Kuchamancity & ors. 3