Sale Deed Which Is Not Released By Registrar Due To Insufficiency Of Stamp Can’t Be Received Or Admitted In Evidence: Gujarat High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking the quashing and setting aside of the impugned order passed in a Regular Civil Suit.

The Single Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed, “When it has been brought and declared before the trial Court that sale deed in question is not released by the Registrar due to insufficiency of stamp, such document by no stretch of imagination can be received and or admitted in evidence, especially when the plaintiff has challenged such sale-deed having made prayer to that effect in the suit.”

Further referring to section 34 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay v. Union of India & Ors. (2023), the Bench said, “Thus, from bare reading of said mandatory provision of law applicable so far State of Gujarat and considering ratio of decision in a case of Vijay (supra), it is clear like a day that when instrument is not duly stamp can not be received in evidence and can not be even admitted as an evidence for any purpose by any person irrespective of any consent of the parties authority to receive evidence.”

Advocate Shegun B Chokshi represented the Petitioner.

Factual Background

The petitioner is the original plaintiff, whereas the respondents are the original defendants of a Regular Civil Suit. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking a declaration, a permanent injunction, and partition as well as challenging the sale-deed executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 4 to 9 concerning the suit properties registered with the competent authority. Along with the suit, only a photocopy of the said sale-deed was submitted by the plaintiff, but no exhibit of its original was given on record.

The plaintiff preferred an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC, requesting the trial Court to call upon the defendants 4 to 9 to submit the original sale-deed and the application was allowed. The defendants were asked to produce the original copy of the sale-deed or, in the alternative, submit the affidavit stating the reason for its non-production. The defendants, through their power of attorney holder, submitted an affidavit declaring that the aforesaid registered sale-deed was not in their possession /custody as it was not released by the Registrar due to insufficiency of the stamp. The plaintiff’s application requesting the trial Court to give an exhibit to the aforesaid sale deed was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that a production application came to be filed after the closure of evidence of the defendants, which was filed under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC. It was further noted that the trial Court did allow such an application, though filed at a very belated stage and thereafter, the defendants submitted an affidavit through their power of attorney holder, contending that due to insufficiency of the stamp, the sale-deed in question was retained by the Registrar.

“Once, such fact came to light and not disputed by the plaintiff, it would be incumbent upon the plaintiff to get its certified copy and could have been produced before the trial Court before completion of evidence, thereby, it could have been exhibited subject to fulfill other conditions stipulated in Section 63 read with Section 65 of Evidence Act”, it said.

The Bench also stated, “Ordinarily, it is true that rule of procedure is handmaid of justice and hyper technical approach should be avoided by the trial Court but at the same time rule of procedure can not bend to such an extent that every legal requirement thereby evidence can be brought on record of the civil suit can go bye, irrespective of admissibility of such evidence whether receivable or not required to be admitted or not on the pretext of handmaid of justice. To my mind, such would not be an intention of maker of rule of procedure when made a century back. Further, when in a civil trial where strict rule of Evidence Act would apply, trial court is always required to consider provisions of Evidence Act vis-à-vis CPC. Of course, technicality should not override justice oriented approach but such an approach can not be and should not be arbitrary, fanciful and contrary to mandatory provision of law.”

The Bench was of the view that when it has been brought and declared before the trial Court that sale deed in question is not released by the Registrar due to insufficiency of stamp, such document could not be received and or admitted in evidence. “It is also now well settled legal position of law that unless there is gross error of law and or jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can not lightly interfered with such order passed by the trial Court”, it said.

Finding no gross error of law or jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court, the Bench dismissed the application.

Cause Title: Savitaben Bachubhai Trivedi v. Trivedi Romaben Wd/o Dipakbhai Bachubhai Trivedi & Ors. (Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 8131 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Shegun B Chokshi, SP Majmudar

Click here to read/download Order