Court rules that non-registration of document extinguishing immovable property rights is a fatal defect; rejects attempt to cure defect through stamp duty impounding
In a significant ruling delivered on October 30, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) dismissed writ petitions challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Bandikui, which held a relinquishment deed inadmissible due to non-registration under the Registration Act, 1908. The case, titled Radheshyam Gupta v. Ankur Khandelwal & Ors., involved a dispute over ownership rights and possession of a house and shop.
The petitioner-defendant sought to rely upon a Relinquishment Deed dated December 5, 2009, allegedly executed by the plaintiff's father, to claim exclusive title and possession over the disputed properties. However, the civil court had declared the deed inadmissible in evidence as it was unregistered despite being a compulsorily registrable document under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. The deed purported to extinguish rights in immovable property exceeding the value of Rs. 100, triggering the mandatory registration requirement.
The petitioner further moved an application to pay the deficit stamp duty and requested the court to send the deed to the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur, for impounding, hoping to revive its admissibility. The civil court rejected this application, holding that an unregistered document is "dead in the eyes of law" and that curing stamp defects cannot resurrect the document's legal validity. The court observed that using the impounding route after the deed had been held inadmissible was a futile and dilatory tactic.
The High Court affirmed the lower court's findings, emphasizing the clear distinction between the curable defect of insufficient stamping and the incurable defect of non-registration of compulsory documents. It also rejected the petitioner's argument that the deed could be used for "collateral purposes" under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, noting that since the deed was relied upon to establish exclusive possession and title-the core issue between the parties-it could not be considered collateral.
Further, the court held that objections related to admissibility going to the root of the case, such as non-registration, must be decided at the earliest stage and should not be deferred to the final arguments, rejecting the petitioner's plea for postponement.
The High Court underscored the importance of preventing abuse of the judicial process and dilatory tactics that prolong civil proceedings. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the court found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the orders challenged and dismissed the writ petitions.
This judgment reiterates the legal principle that documents extinguishing rights in immovable property exceeding Rs. 100 must be compulsorily registered to be admissible as evidence. It clarifies that while stamp duty deficiencies can be remedied, non-registration is fatal and cannot be circumvented by post hoc payments or impounding procedures through the court.
Bottom Line:
Registration Act, 1908 - Unregistered relinquishment deed extinguishing rights in immovable property of value exceeding Rs.100 is inadmissible in evidence for want of compulsory registration - Defect of insufficient stamping is curable, but non-registration of a compulsorily registrable document is fatal and incurable - Such document cannot be sent for impounding through Court after having been held inadmissible merely to indirectly overcome bar of non-registration - Collateral purpose exception under proviso to Section 49 is unavailable where deed is relied upon to establish exclusive title and possession, which is the core dispute.
Statutory provision(s):
Registration Act, 1908 Sections 17(1)(b), 49 proviso; Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998; Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1962 Rule 3A; Constitution of India Article 227
Radheshyam Gupta v. Ankur Khandelwal, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3011077
