1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 05/05/2026 Order delivered on 15/06/2026 WP227 No. 402 of 2024 1 - Lobhan S/o Late Rajpal Satnami Aged About 33 Years R/o Vill. Gangpur, Post Bemetara, Tah. And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shobhan Das S/o Late Rajpal Satnami Aged About 21 Years R/o House No. 90, Vill. Gangpur, Post Bemetara, Tah. And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Kaushilya W/o Dinesh Banjare (Father Late Rajpal) Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill. Dhaurabhatha, Ward No. 08, Post Bargarh, Tah. Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Kanak Bai W/o Late Rajpal Aged About 54 Years Caste Satnami, R/o House No. 90, Satanamipara, Vill. Gangpur, Post Bemetara, Tah. And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Moti Ram S/o Sakha Satnami Aged About 65 Years Farmer, R/o Vill. Bahunawagaon, Post, Tah. And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Milau Das S/o Ram Das Satnami Aged About 75 Years Farmer, R/o Vill. Bahunawagaon, Tah. Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.06.15 18:04:03 +0530 2 2 - Jeet Ram S/o Dhirpal Satnami Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill. Bahunawagaon, Post, Tah. And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Raj Kumar S/o Dhirpal Satnami Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill. Bahunawagaon, Post, Tah. And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chetan Bai D/o Dhirpal Satnami Aged About 58 Years R/o Vill. Bahunawagaon, Post, Tah. And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bemetara, Tah. And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. C.A.V. Order 1. The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Bemetara, District Bemetara, in Civil Suit No. 150-A/2022, whereby the objection with respect to the marking of exhibit on the deed of agreement dated 25.06.1985 filed by the plaintiff has been rejected. 2. Subject matter in brief is that the petitioners are the defendants before the learned trial Court, and the respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property of the land Kh. No. 201 area 0.500 Hect. (Old Kh. No. 195/2 area 0.600 Hect.), situated at village Bahunawagaon, P.H. No. 46, Tahsil and District 3 Bemetara (C.G.), with the pleading that the father of the plaintiff borrowed a loan of Rs. 200/- in the year 1965, from Bulul Satnami, who was his relative (fufa), and he pledged the suit land with him. The entire amount of the loan was repaid immediately after three years, and the possession of the land was taken back. His father was in possession of the same, and thereafter, he is in possession. The legal heirs of Bulul Satnami, i.e. the father of the defendants, had executed an agreement on 25.06.1985 that their names had inadvertently mutated in the revenue records and they are not the owners of the suit land, and the same may be corrected. Bulul Satnami or his sons, Rajpal, Sakha, and Dhirpal, have never claimed the suit property during their lifetimes. In December 2022, the defendants filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking demarcation of the suit land and claiming ownership over the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the suit land is recorded in the names of the defendants, and thereafter, the present suit is filed. In the suit, during the recording of evidence of the plaintiff, an objection was raised at the time of marking the exhibit on a deed of agreement dated 25.06.1985, and the learned trial court rejected the objection raised by the defendants vide its order dated 27.03.2024, and permitted the plaintiff to exhibit the said deed dated 25.06.1985. The said order dated 27.03.2024 is under challenge in the present writ petition filed by the defendants. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the agreement dated 25.06.1985 is an unregistered document which cannot be permitted to be exhibited as evidence. In the absence of proper stamp duty and registration, it is inadmissible in evidence, and the same cannot be permitted to be exhibited. He would further submit that the defendants have denied the execution of such a document and also denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. The document, which is sought to be exhibited in evidence by the plaintiff, is inadmissible in evidence and has no force of any right; it cannot be exhibited. The said document conveyed the title, and therefore, it requires registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of “Omprakash v. Laxminarayan” 2014 (1) SCC 618, “Ramdas and Others v. Nohar Das” 2022 (4) CGLJ 18. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 would submit that the order passed by the learned trial Court permitting the plaintiff to exhibit the deed of agreement dated 25.06.1985, is in accordance with law. Even if the deed is not registered, its effect is to be considered at the time of final hearing and at the stage of recording evidence of the parties, the deed is exhibited only for the convenience and to read the document as evidence. The plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint about the execution of the said agreement deed dated 25.06.1985 and is admissible in evidence. It can be admissible for collateral 5 purposes also, and therefore, permitting it to be marked as an exhibit, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court. he would also submit that merely exhibiting the document does not mean that it is proved by the plaintiff. Exhibition of the document in evidence is a procedural part of the trial, and its evidentiary value is to be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the objection of the defendants and permitted the plaintiff to mark the exhibit on the agreement deed dated 25.06.1985, and there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material produced by the petitioner and gone through their pleadings. 6. The issue involved in the present writ petition pertains to the permission granted to the plaintiff to mark as an exhibit a document, namely the deed of agreement dated 25.06.1985, allegedly executed by the legal heirs of late Bulul Satnami, which was produced at the stage of recording of his evidence. The defendants raised an objection contending that the said document, being insufficiently stamped and unregistered, is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be exhibited. The learned trial Court, however, rejected the objection raised by the defendants, aggrieved by which the present petition has been preferred. 6 7. In the plaint, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has specifically pleaded in paragraph 4 that the legal heirs of late Bulul Satnami, namely Rajpal, Sakha, Dhirpal and Neera Bai (widow of late Bulul Satnami), executed an agreement dated 25.06.1985 acknowledging that their names had been inadvertently mutated in the revenue records pertaining to land bearing Khasra No. 195/2, admeasuring 0.600 hectare. It was further stated therein that they were neither the owners nor in possession of the said land, and that the revenue entries ought to be corrected in the name of Ramdas, the father of the plaintiff, who was in possession of the land. In order to substantiate the aforesaid pleading, the plaintiff sought to prove and exhibit the agreement dated 25.06.1985 allegedly executed by Rajpal, Sakha, Dhirpal and Neera Bai, to which the defendants raised an objection. The said agreement is an unregistered document executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/-. The recitals contained in the agreement are substantially the same as those pleaded in paragraph 4 of the plaint, namely, that the names of Rajpal, Sakha, Dhirpal and Neera Bai were inadvertently recorded in the revenue records in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 195/2, area 0.600 hectare, whereas Ramdas was in possession thereof, and therefore the revenue entries were required to be corrected in his name. 8. The objection is raised by the petitioners/defendants that the said deed of agreement dated 25.06.1985 is not registered and inadmissible in evidence. The learned trial Court rejected the 7 objection and permitted the plaintiff to mark the exhibit on the said agreement dated 25.06.1985. Merely marking of the exhibits in the document during the evidence does not amount to its proof and does not make it admissible in evidence. It is only to facilitate the trial Court in the proceeding to read the document in evidence. 9. In the case of “S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and Others” 2010 (5) SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “12. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of the proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs 100 and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be 8 received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act.” 10. In “Subraya M.N. v. Vittala M.N. and Others” 2016 (8) SCC 705, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that even if the document is not registered, it can be considered for collateral purposes. The unregistered documents can be used as evidence. 11. In the case of “Thulasidhara and Another v. Narayanappa and Others” 2019 (6) SCC 409, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “9.3. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that as the partition deed dated 23-4- 1971 (Ext. D-4) was unregistered though required registration under the provisions of the Registration Act and therefore the same is not admissible in evidence is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such Ext. D-4 can be said to be a Palupatti as has been described as Palupatti. Palupatti means list of properties partitioned. At the most, it can be said to be a family arrangement. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same was not required to be registered. 9.4. It is required to be noted that the deed dated 23-4-1971, under which the suit property had gone/devolved in favour of Krishnappa, was reduced in writing before the panchayat and panchas, and the same was signed by the village people/panchayat people and all the members of the family including even the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff disputed that the partition was not reduced 9 in writing in the form of document Ext. D-4, on considering the entire b evidence on record and even the deposition of the plaintiff (cross- examination), 1971. He has also admitted that he has got the share which tallies with the he has specifically admitted that the oral partition had taken place in the year document dated 23-4-1971 (Ext. D-4). Execution of the document/partition deed/Palupatta dated 23-4-1971 has been established and proved by examining different witnesses. The High Court has refused to look into the said document and/or consider document dated 23-4-1971 (Ext. D-4) solely on the ground that it requires registration and therefore as it is unregistered, the same cannot be looked into. However, as observed by this Court in Kale² that such a family settlement, though not registered, would operate as a complete estoppel against the parties to such a family settlement. In the aforesaid decision, this Court considered its earlier decision in S. Shanmugam Pillai v. K. Shanmugam Pillai 10 in which it was observed as under: (S. Shanmugam Pillai case10, SCC pp. 319 & 321, paras 13 & 22) "13. Equitable, principles such as estoppel, election, family settlement, etc. are not mere technical rules of evidence. They have an important purpose to serve in the administration of justice. The ultimate aim of the law is to secure justice. In the recent times in order to render justice between the parties, courts have been liberally relying on 10 those principles. We would hesitate to narrow down their scope. * * * 22. As observed by this Court in T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities casell, that if a person having full knowledge of his right as a possible reversioner enters into a transaction which settles his claim as well as the claim of the opponents at the relevant time, he cannot be permitted to go back on that agreement when reversion actually falls open." 9.5. As held by this Court in Subraya M.N.3 even without registration a written document of family settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, even the plaintiff has also categorically admitted that the oral partition had taken place on23-4-1971 and he also admitted that 3 to 4 panchayat people were also present. However, according to him, the same was not reduced in writing. Therefore, even accepting the case of the plaintiff that there was an oral partition on 23-4-1971, the document, Ext. D-4 dated 23-4- 1971, to which he is also the signatory and all other family members are signatory, can be said to be a list of properties partitioned. Everybody got right/share as per the oral partition/partition. Therefore, the same even can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances 11 of the case, the High Court has committed a grave/manifest error in not looking into and/or not considering the document Ext. D-4 dated 23-4- 1971.” 12. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court permitting the plaintiff to mark the agreement dated 25.06.1985 as an exhibit during the course of his evidence. The objection raised by the petitioners/defendants is primarily founded on the ground that the said document is an unregistered instrument, and therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence. However, at the stage of recording of evidence, the Court is not expected to finally adjudicate upon the evidentiary value or conclusively determine the admissibility of the document in relation to all purposes for which it may ultimately be relied upon. Mere exhibition of a document does not dispense with the requirement of proving the document in accordance with law, nor does it automatically render the document admissible in evidence. Marking of a document as an exhibit is essentially a procedural act undertaken for the purpose of identification and reference during trial so that the document may form part of the record and be considered by the Court at the stage of final adjudication. The objections regarding its admissibility, proof, evidentiary value and legal effect remain open for consideration at the time of final appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. 12 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “S. Kaladevi” (supra), “Subraya M.N.” (supra) and “Thulasidhara” (supra) has consistently held that even though an unregistered document may not be admissible for the purpose of proving transfer of title or creation of rights in immovable property where registration is compulsory, such a document can nevertheless be looked into for collateral purposes. The expression “collateral purpose” has been interpreted to mean a purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right in immovable property. In the present case, the agreement dated 25.06.1985 is sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff not as a document of title, but to substantiate the pleading that the names of the legal heirs of late Bulul Satnami were allegedly mutated inadvertently in the revenue records and that Ramdas, father of the plaintiff, was in possession of the suit land. Thus, at this stage, the document cannot be outrightly excluded from consideration merely because it is unregistered. Whether the document is duly proved, whether it can legally be read in evidence for the limited collateral purpose pleaded by the plaintiff, and what evidentiary weight is ultimately to be attached to it, are all issues that are required to be examined by the trial Court at the time of final adjudication of the suit after appreciation of the entire evidence on record. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the objection raised by the petitioners/defendants and permitted the document to be 13 exhibited subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy in accordance with law. 14. The judgments of “Omprakash” (supra) and “Ramdas” (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts of the case. The judgment of “Omprakash” (supra) relates to the deficiency of the stamp duty on an agreement of sale in which possession was delivered, and it has the effect of conveyance, and therefore, it is held that the same requires registration. In the case of “Ramdas” (supra), the issue was that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed, and the defendant is claiming the property through an unregistered sale agreement and came into possession of the same, in such facts, the claim of the defendant was denied for want of any registered deed of transfer of title in his favour. In the present case, the plaintiff claims that the legal heirs of late Bulul Satnami executed an agreement on 25.06.1985 that their names have been inadvertently recorded in the revenue records and they are not in possession of the same. Thus, there are factual differences in the judgments cited by the petitioner’s counsel and the facts of the present case, and thus, neither of these judgments helps the petitioners in their favour. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, jurisdictional 14 error or perversity warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned trial Court has rightly permitted the agreement dated 25.06.1985 to be marked as an exhibit. 16. Consequently, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 17. Interim order dated 09.05.2024 stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok