1. The petitioners before this Court have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Court below in RCSB No.42/2022, whereby the objection raised by the petitioners / defendants has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case reveal that the respondent / plaintiff filed a money suit i.e. RCSB No.42/2022 against the petitioners / defendants for recovery of Rs.1,09,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Lakh Only) on the basis of cancellation of alleged written sale agreement dated 30.03.2017 between the late father of the petitioner namely Akhtar Hussein and respondent. It was pleaded in the plaint that the aforesaid sale agreement was signed by Akhtar Hussein and the plaintiff, who are seller and purchaser respectively for purchase of ten survey numbers total area 4.30 hectare for consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Out of total ten survey numbers, five survey numbers (area 1.47 hectare) are situated at Village - Daulatpura, Tehsil & District - Mandsaur and remaining five survey numbers (area 2.83 hectare) are situated at Village - Hedarwas, Tehsil & District - Mandsaur. The said sale agreement was cancelled with the consent of the parties on 02.05.2018 and the same is recorded on back page of the sale agreement itself.

3. The petitioners / defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the suit by stating that neither any agreement has been signed by late Akhtar Hussein nor they received single penny from the plaintiff and prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The details of alleged transaction between the parties has been mentioned by the petitioners in paragraphs - 4 & 5 of the miscellaneous petition which are as under:-

          ''4. That, it is also pleaded that deceased Akhtar Hussein had received a total Rs. 1,16,00,000/- (One Crore Sixteen Lakh) out of total sale agreement amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000 /- (One Crore Twenty Five Lakh) through NEFT, RTGS and in cash mode. It is stated in agreement that late Akhtar Hussein said to have received the payment of Rs. 68,00,000/- (Sixty Eight Lakh) till the date of agreement dated 30.03.17 in the following ways; Rs. 25,00,000/- received in cash on 15.02.2017, Rs.23,00,000/- received in cash on 20/02/2017, Rs. 5,00,000/- received through NEFT on 21.02.2017, again Rs. 5,00,000/- received through NEFT on 21.02.2017, Rs. 4,00,000/- received through RTGS on 10.03.2017, again Rs. 4,00,000/- received through RTGS on 10.03.2017, and Rs. 2,00,000/- received through RTGS on 29.03.2017. Total Rs. 48, 00,000/- (Forty Eight Lakh) in cash and 20, 0000/- (Twenty Lakh) through online mode till the date of 30.03.17.

          5. The sale agreement also contain payment receipt dated 25.09.2017 in its backside highlighting dates on which remaining payment of Rs.48,00,000/- (Forty Eight Lakh) paid by the respondent to the late Akhtar Hussein. The details of which are following; Rs. 5,00,000/- received in cash on 24.04.2017, Rs. 25,00,000/- received in cash on 23.08.2017, Rs. 10,00,000/- received in cash on 30.08.2017, Rs. 3,00,000/- received in cash on 25.09.2017, Rs. 4,00,000/- received through RTGS on 17.04.2017, and Rs. 1,00,000/- received through NEFT on 17.04.2017. Total Rs.43,00,000/- (Forty Three Lakh) in Cash and Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lakh) in online mode. The aforesaid payment receipt has been written in the backside of the sale agreement. Further, the said payment receipts neither contain any requisite stamp duty nor it is registered.''

5. The respondent / plaintiff instituted the civil suit after the death of Akhtar Hussein on the basis of alleged sale agreement and subsequent cancellation thereof and on the basis of payment receipt as aforesaid, however, neither the cancelled agreement nor the payment receipt has been registered nor contain any requisite stamp which is necessary in view of the provision contain in the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act.

6. On such premises, the defendants raised objection against admissibility and exhibiting unregistered cancelled agreement and payment receipt in evidence at the time of commencement of evidence of PW-1, which came to be rejected vide order dated 08.11.2024. Hence, present miscellaneous petition is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged sale agreement is unregistered and as per the provisions of Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act, 1908, the same is required to be registered. The aforesaid cancellation also does not contain sufficient stamp duty as required under Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is further submitted that the payment receipts dated 05.02.2021 and 25.09.2017 are also required to be registered as the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act as it acknowledges payment in view of creation and extinguishment of right in the immovable property respectively. The learned trial Court did not consider the said aspect and wrongly rejected the objection. Learned counsel further submits that a recovery suit on the basis of unregistered cancelled agreement is not maintainable in view of specific bar under Section 17 of the Registration Act and in view of the Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act also, the cancelled agreement is inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8. To prop up the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon several judgments delivered in the cases of K. B. Saha & Sons Private Limited v/s Development Consultant Limited reported in (2008) 8 SCC 564 , Gordhan S/o Kheemaji Mogiya v/s Dinesh S/o Champalal & Others reported in 2017 (4) M.P.L.J. 565 and Devi Singh Kushwah v/s Surajbhan Singh Gurjar & Another reported in 2017 (1) MPWN 68.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the order impugned and prayed that the miscellaneous petition be dismissed. Reliance has been placed upon judgments delivered in the cases of Akshay Doogad v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in AIR 2016 Madhya Pradesh 83 and Prakash Sahu v/s Saulal reported in AIR OnLine 2019 SC 2511.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

11. To disentangle the controversy involved in this case, it is apposite to take reference of the provisions of Indian Stamp Act & Registration Act. Sections 13 & 14 of the Indian Stamp are reproduced below:-

          ''13. Instruments stamped with impressed stamps how to be written. -- Every instrument written upon paper stamped with an impressed stamp shall be written in such manner that the stamp may appear on the face of the instrument and cannot be used for or applied to any other instrument.

          14. Only one instrument to be on same stamp. --No second instrument chargeable with duty shall be written upon a piece of stamped paper upon which an instrument chargeable with duty has already been written:

          Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any endorsement which is duly stamped or is not chargeable with duty being made upon any instrument for the purpose of transferring any right created or evidenced thereby, or of acknowledging the receipt of any money or goods the payment or delivery of which is secured thereby.''

12. As per the Section 13, e very instrument written on paper with an impressed stamp (stamp paper) must be written so that the stamp appears on the face of the document. Section 14 sets boundaries for multiple instruments on one stamp, promoting clarity and ensuring each taxable event is properly accounted for under the stamp duty regime. No second instrument chargeable with duty shall be written upon a one peace of stamp paper. Hence, the contents which has been written in back side of the agreement to sale shall be treated as to be written on plain paper.

13. Sections 17 & 49 of the Registration Act are reproduced below:-

          ''17. Documents of which registration is compulsory. --(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:--

          (a) instruments of gift of immovable property;

          (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;

          (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and

          (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;

          (e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:

          [(f) any documents which purports or operates to effect any contract for sale of any immovable property;

          (g) power of attorney relating to sale of immovable property relating to sale of immovable property in any way];

          [(h) any other instrument required by any law for the time being in force, to be registered.]

          Provided that the 4[State Government] may, by order published in the [Official Gazette], exempt from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.

          (1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (48 of 2001) and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.]

          (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to--

          (i) any composition deed; or

          (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or

          (iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or

          (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or

          (v) any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A)] 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; or

          (vi) any decree or order of a Court 3[except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]; or

          (vii) any grant of immovable property by 4[Government]; or

          (viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or

          (ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871 (26 of 1871), or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (19 of 1883); or

          (x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884 (12 of 1884), or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or

          5[(xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or

          (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or

          (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer.''

          ''49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.

          - No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),] [Added by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10.] to be registered shall

          (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

          (b) confer any power to adopt, or

          (c ) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power,

          ( d ) unless it has been registered:[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the [Specific Relief Act, 1877] [Added by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10.], [* * *] [The words "or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)" omitted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 6 (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]''

14. The document dated 05.02.2021 is an independent document and shall be treated as receipt with respect to liability of money, hence, under the provision of Section 17, the same is not liable to be registered. Accordingly, this provision is of no help to the petitioners.

15. So far as Section 49 of the Registration Act is concerned, the unregistered document can be used for collateral purpose and the same has rightly be observed by the trial Court. In some scenarios, an unstamped document may be admitted for collateral purposes to prove the transaction which took place, not to prove the terms of the contract.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Prakash Sahu (supra) has held as under:-

          ''The short question in the present appeal is whether an unregistered agreement of sale can be seen for collateral purposes under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Trial Court based its reasoning on a decision of this Court in S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 401 elucidating as follows:-

          "(i) In that situation it is essential for the registration of the document, if, unregistered is not admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

          (ii) Yet, such unregistered document can be used by way of collateral evidences provided in the proviso to the Section 49 of the Registration Act.

          (iii) For effecting with the collateral transaction, whose registration is required by law should be free from the transaction or be divisible from that.

          (iv) Collateral transaction should be such a transaction which may not be automatically expected of effecting by the registered document, i.e. Rupees One Hundred or any transaction or instrument or right or interest in any immovable property of the value of more than Rupees One Hundred.

          (v) If the document is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of registration then any of its estopple cannot be admitted in evidence and for use of the document for purposes of proving important part, it would not be utilized by way of collateral purpose."

17. In view of the foregoing discussion and aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the unregistered document can be used for collateral purpose. No patent illegality has been committed by the trial Court and the order passed by the trial Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor from any perversity warranting interference by this Court.

18. In view of the above, Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.