[2025:RJ-JP:51082] (1 of 5) [CW-8021/2025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8021/2025 Chhotulal Son Of Shri Kalyan, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Bambori, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sudha Kanwar Wife Of Bhupendra Singh Naruka, Resident Of Plot No. 350-A, Talvandi, Kota (Raj.) 2. Bhupendra Naruka Son Of Nawal Singh, Resident Of Plot No. 350-A, Talvandi, Kota (Raj.) 3. Nagar Parishad, Sawai Madhopur, Through Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Sawai Madhopur. 4. Nagar Parishad, Sawai Madhopur, Through Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Singh Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 09.12.2025 Date on which the judgment was reserved 09.12.2025 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment Date of pronouncement 06.01.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Civil Suit No.148/2014, whereby application of the petitioner- plaintiff objecting to the admissibility and exhibiting of the documents filed by the defendants-respondents has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents. The defendants-respondents filed the [2025:RJ-JP:51082] (2 of 5) [CW-8021/2025] reply and also filed the counter-claim. The learned Trial Court framed the issues on 17.03.2017. During the evidence, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application stating therein that the agreements to sell dated 16.01.1984 produced by the respondents-defendants is not properly stamped and not registered, therefore same is not admissible in evidence and further cannot be exhibited. The application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 28.04.2025, hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that the agreement to sell on which the defendants want to place reliance for decree of counter claim is neither sufficiently stamped nor registered. The document is creating right and possession of the property that has been transferred under the document in the property, as pleaded by the respondent in para 4 & 5 of the counter claim of the respondent. 3.1 In the counter-claim, no relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell has been claimed but rather the defendant on the basis of agreements to sell have prayed for declaration to the effect that the defendant may be declared owner of the property. 3.2 Moreover for the purpose of declaration of ownership, an agreement to sell cannot be made admissible in evidence and the learned Trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents contends that the agreements have been got written by the father of the defendants-respondents. 4.1 Further, the documents do not require stamps and registration. [2025:RJ-JP:51082] (3 of 5) [CW-8021/2025] 4.2 The documents do not create any right in the property, therefore, the same does not require registration. 4.3 Learned counsel for the defendants-respondents further submit that the documents being old one, therefore, the same can be permitted to be exhibited and prayed that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality, so as to call for any interference under Article 227 Constitution of India. 4.4 Learned counsel for respondent to buttress his arguments placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2926; Food Corporation of India versus M/S Babulal Agarwal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court finds that it is undisputed fact that the suit or the counter-claim of the defendants-respondents is not for specific performance of the agreement. 7. The counter-claim is for the declaration of ownership in favour of the defendants-respondents based on the agreement to sell. It is pertinent to note that no relief is there for specific performance nor there is relief seeking registered document on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell. 8. It is settled principle of law that agreement to sell do not confer any right, title or interest in the property. 9. Unregistered agreement to sell is admissible only in suit for specific performance or in a suit seeking registered document based on the unregistered agreement to sell. 10. Reliance by the respondent on the judgment of Food Corporation of India (supra) is misplaced as no right was being created by the document in that case but in the present case a [2025:RJ-JP:51082] (4 of 5) [CW-8021/2025] right has been created in the property by the agreement to sell as pleaded in para 4 & 5 of the counter claim. 11. This Court finds support in reaching to the above conclusion based on the following judgments: 11.1 In a case reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656; Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “19.Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter.” 11.2 In the case of Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar; (2018) 7 SCC 639 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “12. In the reported decision, this Court has adverted to the principles delineated in K.B. Saha & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd. [K.B. Saha & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 564] and has added one more principle thereto that a document is required to be registered, but if unregistered, can still be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. In view of this exposition, the conclusion recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment [Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar v. Ameer Minhaj, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad [2025:RJ-JP:51082] (5 of 5) [CW-8021/2025] 31541] that the sale agreement dated 9-7-2003 is inadmissible in evidence, will have to be understood to mean that the document though exhibited, will bear an endorsement that it is admissible only as evidence of the agreement to sell under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act and shall not have any effect for the purposes of Section 53-A of the 1882 Act. In that, it is received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance and nothing more. The genuineness, validity and binding nature of the document or the fact that it is hit by the provisions of the 1882 Act or the 1899 Act, as the case may be, will have to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage as noted by the trial court after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence” 12. Based on the above observations, this Court holds that an agreement to sale is only admissible in a suit for specific performance and cannot be taken in evidence for any other purpose. 13. For the reasons and discussions as made above, this Court finds that an illegality has been committed by the learned trial court and therefore interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, the order dated 28.04.2025 is quashed and set aside. The agreements to sell dated 16.01.1984 are held to be inadmissible in a counter claim for declaration. 15. All pending applications stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/63