RADHESHYAM GUPTA S/O SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL vs ANKUR KHANDELWAL S/O SHRI BANWARI LAL

[2026:RJ-JP:44241]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6298/2026
CNR: RJHC020259512026 | URN: CW / 13946U / 2026
Radheshyam Gupta S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal, Resident Of Street
Of Opposite Dr. Khoongar, Nayi Basti, Ramganj, Ajmer 305003,
Raj.
----Petitioner/Defendant No.1
Versus
1. Ankur Khandelwal S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Resident Of
Behind Police Station, Near Jain Oil Mill, Ward No.15,
Sikandara Road, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt. Dausa.
......Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Pushpendra Khandelwal S/o Chandra Prakash Khandelwal,
Resident Of Behind Police Station, Opposite Kabristan,
Ward No.18, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt. Dausa.
3. Krishan Gopal Khandelwal S/o Chandra Prakash
Khandelwal, Resident Of Behind Police Station, Opposite
Kabristan, Ward No.18, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt.
Dausa.
4. Smt. Chandrakalan Devi W/o Chandra Prakash
Khandelwal, Resident Of Behind Police Station, Opposite
Kabristan, Ward No.18, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt.
Dausa.
5. Sumit Khandelwal S/o Murari Lal Khandelwal, Resident Of
Plot No. 575, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur
302015, Raj.
6. Smt. Pushpa Khandelwal W/o Murari Lal Khandelwal, Died
On 30.07.2023
7. Prakash Chand Gupta S/o Shambhu Dayal Gupta,
Resident Of Behind Police Station Bandikui, Near Shyam
Temple, Ward No. 18 Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt.
Dausa.
8. Satya Narayan Gupta S/o Shambhu Dayal Gupta,
Resident Of Street Of Opposite Methi Choice Palace, Near
Khadi Gram Bhandar, Sikandara Road, Bandikui, Tehsil
Bandikui, Distt. Dausa.
9. Smt. Prem Lata Khandelwal D/o Shambhu Dayal Gupta
W/o Sushil Kumar Khandelwal, Resident Of 570/27,
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(2 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
Behind Police Chowki, Ramganj, Ajmer 305003, Raj.
10. Smt. Dhapli Devi W/o Shambhu Dayal Gupta, Died On
01.03.2024
11. Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Banwari Lal, Resident Of Behind
Police Station, Near Jain Oil Mill, Ward No. 15, Sikandara
Road, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt. Dausa.
12. Smt. Bebi Khandelwal D/o Banwari Lal W/o Babu Lal
Khandelwal, Resident Of Ram Prasad Dhaukriya
Vivekanand Colony, Sunderdas Marg, Dausa 303303, Raj.
13. Smt. Pushpa Khandelwal D/o Banwari Lal W/o Tanuj
Khandelwal, Resident Of 212 Saket Colony Makarwali
Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer 305004, Raj.
14. Smt. Rajni Khandelwal D/o Banwari Lal W/o Anil Kumar
Gupta, Resident Of E 25, Saraswati Nagar Getor, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur 302017, Raj.
15. Smt. Smita Devi W/o Ankit Khandelwal, Resident of K.55,
Kishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur.
16. Kumari Navya @ Niya D/o Ankit Khandelwal, Minor
Through Mother Smita Devi Resident of K.55, Kishan
Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur.
--Performa-Respondents/Defendant No.2 to 16
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6290/2026
CNR: RJHC020322942026 | URN: CW / 13937U / 2026
Radheshyam Gupta S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal, Resident Of Street
Of Opposite Dr. Khoongar, Nayi Basti, Ramganj, Ajmer 305003,
Raj.
----Petitioner/Defendant No.1
Versus
1. Ankur Khandelwal S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Resident Of
Behind Police Station, Near Jain Oil Mill, Ward No.15,
Sikandara Road, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt. Dausa.
....Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Pushpendra Khandelwal S/o Chandra Prakash Khandelwal,
Resident Of Behind Police Station, Opposite Kabristan,
Ward No.18, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt. Dausa.
3. Krishan Gopal Khandelwal S/o Chandra Prakash
Khandelwal, Resident Of Behind Police Station, Opposite
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(3 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
Kabristan, Ward No.18, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt.
Dausa.
4. Smt. Chandrakalan Devi W/o Chandra Prakash
Khandelwal, Resident Of Behind Police Station, Opposite
Kabristan, Ward No.18, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt.
Dausa.
5. Sumit Khandelwal S/o Murari Lal Khandelwal, Resident Of
Plot No. 575, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur
302015, Raj.
6. Smt. Pushpa Khandelwal W/o Murari Lal Khandelwal, Died
On 30.07.2023
7. Prakash Chand Gupta S/o Shambhu Dayal Gupta,
Resident Of Behind Police Station Bandikui, Near Shyam
Temple, Ward No. 18 Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt.
Dausa.
8. Satya Narayan Gupta S/o Shambhu Dayal Gupta,
Resident Of Street Of Opposite Methi Choice Palace, Near
Khadi Gram Bhandar, Sikandara Road, Bandikui, Tehsil
Bandikui, Distt. Dausa.
9. Smt. Prem Lata Khandelwal D/o Shambhu Dayal Gupta
W/o Sushil Kumar Khandelwal, Resident Of 570/27,
Behind Police Chowki, Ramganj, Ajmer 305003, Raj.
10. Smt. Dhapli Devi W/o Shambhu Dayal Gupta, Died On
01.03.2024
11. Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Banwari Lal, Resident Of Behind
Police Station, Near Jain Oil Mill, Ward No. 15, Sikandara
Road, Bandikui, Tehsil Bandikui, Distt. Dausa.
12. Smt. Bebi Khandelwal D/o Banwari Lal W/o Babu Lal
Khandelwal, Resident Of Ram Prasad Dhaukriya
Vivekanand Colony, Sunderdas Marg, Dausa 303303, Raj.
13. Smt. Pushpa Khandelwal D/o Banwari Lal W/o Tanuj
Khandelwal, Resident Of 212 Saket Colony Makarwali
Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer 305004, Raj.
14. Smt. Rajni Khandelwal D/o Banwari Lal W/o Anil Kumar
Gupta, Resident Of E 25, Saraswati Nagar Getor, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur 302017, Raj.
15. Smt. Smita Devi W/o Ankit Khandelwal, Resident Of K.55,
Kishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(4 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
16. Kumari Navya @ Niya D/o Ankit Khandelwal, Minor
Through Mother Smita Devi Resident Of K.55, Kishan
Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur.
--Performa-Respondents/Defendant No.2 to 16
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Kumar Agrawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta with
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE
1 Arguments concluded on 13/10/2026
2 Judgment Reserved on 13/10/2026
3 Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced : Full Judgment
4 Pronounced on 30/10/2026
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the
controversy involved is broadly defined by the challenge raised
regarding two sequential orders passed by the learned Additional
District Judge No.2, Bandikui (hereinafter referred to as the 'Civil
Court'. By way of the first petition (S.B. CWP No. 6290/2026), the
challenge has been put to the order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-
3) whereby a Relinquishment Deed dated 05.12.2009 was held
inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and by way of the
second petition (S.B. CWP No. 6298/2026), the challenge has
been laid to the subsequent order dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure-
6), whereby the application moved by the petitioner to send the
same inadmissible document to the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur for
impounding was dismissed.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(5 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
2. Consequently, considering the fact that the writ petitions
warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with
the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties,
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6298/2026 titled Radheyshyam
Gupta v. Ankur Khandelwal & Ors. is being taken up as the
main case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the
present batch of writ petitions pertain purely to the factual
narratives contained therein and not vis-a-vis the questions of law
to be determined by this Court; the instant judgment shall be
applicable to the petitions connected herein on a mutatis mutandis
basis.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE LIS AT HAND:
3. The factual matrix culminating in the present adjudication is
exhaustively delineated as under:
3.1 The respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted a civil suit
(Annexure-1) for cancellation of a sale deed, declaration, partition,
and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed properties
i.e., the house and the shop.
3.2 After service of summons, the petitioner-defendant filed a
written statement on 04.05.2022 (Annexure-2), claiming exclusive
right, title, and possession over the disputed properties on the
basis of a Relinquishment Deed dated 05.12.2009 (Annexure-5)
allegedly executed by the plaintiff’s father, namely Shri Banwari
Lal.
3.3 During the course of the underlying civil proceedings, the
respondent No.1-plaintiff moved an application under Section 17
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(6 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
of the Registration Act, 1908 (Annexure-R/1), contending that the
said Relinquishment Deed is unregistered and hence inadmissible
under the eyes of law. The learned Civil Court, vide order dated
07.10.2025 (Annexure-3), allowed the said application and held
the document to be inadmissible in evidence for want of
compulsory registration.
3.4 Subsequent to the said order, the petitioner moved an
application dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure-4), volunteering to pay
the deficit stamp duty chargeable on the relinquish deed and
praying that the document be sent to the Collector (Stamps) for
impounding, and thereafter, it may be allowed as admissible in
evidence.
3.5 The learned Civil Court, vide the impugned order dated
25.02.2026 (Annexure-6), dismissed the said application moved
by the petitioner, observing that since the document is already
legally inadmissible for want of registration, sending it for
impounding for stamp duty is a futile academic exercise and an
indirect method to review the earlier order.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the impugned orders dated 07.10.2025 and 25.02.2026
passed by the learned Civil Court are arbitrary and suffer from
patent error in the eyes of law. To substantiate the claim for relief,
the following exhaustive grounds were canvassed:
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(7 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
4.1 It was vehemently contended that non-payment of stamp
duty is a curable defect. If an insufficiently stamped instrument is
presented before the Court, the Court is statutorily bound to
impound the same under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998
irrespective of its registration status.
4.2 It was averred that an unregistered document can be looked
into for “collateral purposes” under the proviso to Section 49 of
the Registration Act, 1908 specifically to show severancy of status
and the nature of possession, provided it is duly stamped.
4.3 Learned counsel relied upon the dictum enunciated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnavati Sharma v. Bhagwandas
Sharma , 2026 INSC 300 and Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar
Bhama , 2018 INSC 260 , to argue that the learned Civil Court
erred in refusing to impound the document.
4.4 Relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat , 2001
INSC 106 , it was contended that the decision regarding
admissibility should ideally be deferred until the final stage of the
judgment.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents vehemently opposed the present petitions and prayed
for their summary dismissal. The grounds canvassed are
meticulously recorded ad infra :
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(8 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
5.1 It was stoutly contended that the defects of insufficient
stamping and non-registration operate in distinct fields of law and
are not interchangeable.
5.2 It is submitted that while stamping is curable, the statutory
consequence of non-registration under Sections 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act, 1908 is an incurable defect and that paying the
deficit stamp duty cannot automatically cure the fatal defect of
non-registration.
5.3 Controverting the petitioner’s argument regarding “collateral
purpose”, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
dicta encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Paul
Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chand Mitra &
Anr. , 2023 INSC 854 and Korkunda Chalapathi Rao & Anr. v.
Korkunda Annapurna Sampath Kumar , 2022 (15) SCC 475 .
5.4 It was emphatically submitted that since the petitioner is
claiming exclusive possession and title over the disputed house
based on the Relinquishment Deed, the nature of possession
constitutes the primary lis between the parties, and therefore, it
cannot be termed a mere “collateral purpose”.
5.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the application to
impound the document was a gross abuse of process. If the
petitioner genuinely desired to pay the deficit stamp duty, he was
entirely free to do so independently as per the provisions
enshrined under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 read
with Rule 3A of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1962, which allows
direct payment of deficient duty to the State Government. It is
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(9 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
averred that moving an application before the learned Civil Court
for the purpose of impounding a document that it has already
declared inadmissible is an oblique, dilatory tactic meant solely to
delay the underlying proceedings.
5.6 Lastly, countering the petitioner’s reliance on Bipin
Shantilal Panchal (supra) , learned counsel for the respondents
highlighted that the said judgment was distinguished by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra & Ors. v.
Additional District Judge & Ors. , 2010 (2) RLW 1785 (Raj) ,
which clarified that objections regarding the fundamental
admissibility of a document, such as non-registration, going to the
root of the matter must be decided forthwith, and the same shall
not deferred to the final arguments.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
6. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties at length, considering the judgments cited
at Bar, and upon an assiduous perusal of the material available on
record, including but not limited to the Impugned Orders dated
07.10.2025 and 25.02.2026 and the Relinquishment Deed dated
05.12.2009, this Court is of the view that the present adjudication
necessitates a delicate balancing of statutory mandates under the
Registration Act, 1908 and the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, to
ensure that the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
enshrined under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not
weaponized to cure incurable defects or to bypass established
procedural frameworks.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(10 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
7. This Court observes that the learned Civil Court, while
passing the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-3), has
meticulously and accurately applied the mandate of Section 17(1)
(b) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore,
the said document unequivocally purports to extinguish rights in
an immovable property of a value exceeding Rs. 100/- and
mandates compulsory registration. The learned Civil Trial Court
appropriately relied upon the judicial pronouncements in
Swaroop Singh v. Subhash Singh, 2018 (4) RLW 3297
(Raj.) , and Dinaji v. Daddi , AIR 1990 SC 1153 to conclude
that such an unregistered document is wholly inadmissible in
evidence.
8. This Court notes that the legislative intent behind Section 17
read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, is absolute and
admits no equitable circumvention. The Relinquishment Deed
dated 05.12.2009 purports to extinguish rights in immovable
property and thus squarely falls within the ambit of compulsory
registration. The learned Civil Court, vide order dated 07.10.2025,
rightly held the said document to be inadmissible in evidence.
9. This Court is of the considered view that there exists a
fundamental fallacy in the petitioner’s argument conflating the
provisions enshrined under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 with
the Registration Act, 1908. While the defect of insufficient
stamping may be a curable irregularity, the non-registration of a
compulsorily registrable document is a fatal and incurable defect.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(11 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
Curing the stamp defect will not resurrect a document that is dead
in the eyes of the law for want of registration.
10. This Court notes that the petitioner’s reliance on the proviso
to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 for “collateral
purposes” is entirely misconceived under the present factual
matrix. As highlighted by learned counsel for the respondents, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Paul Rubber Industries Private
Limited (supra) has categorically settled that when the nature
and character of possession constitute the primary dispute for
adjudication, the unregistered deed cannot form a “collateral
purpose”. This Court is conscious of the fact in the case at hand,
the petitioner is using the deed to claim exclusive title and
possession against the plaintiff, and the same is the core lis inter
se the parties and not a collateral incident.
11. This Court further observes that the application dated
07.11.2025 (Annexure-4) moved on behalf of the petitioner for
impounding the said deed was nothing but a vexatious attempt to
derail the ongoing civil proceedings. As rightly pointed out by the
respondents, if the petitioner was genuinely desirous of curing the
stamp defect, he had the independent statutory liberty to deposit
the deficit duty as per the provisions enshrined under Rule 3A of
the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1962.
12. This Court is of the opinion that burdening the learned Civil
Court to impound a document that has already been judicially
pronounced inadmissible is a futile academic exercise and that the
reasoning adopted by the learned Civil Court in the impugned
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(12 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
order dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure-6) is impeccable and warrants
no supervisory interference.
13. This Court is of the view that the learned Civil Court acted
correctly in deciding the admissibility of the document
immediately rather than deferring it to the final stage, in light of
the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Ramesh Chandra (supra) . Postponing a fundamental objection
regarding admissibility that goes to the root of the matter would
defeat the very objective of expedited civil proceedings.
CONCLUSION:
14. Operating as the sentinel on the qui vive (watchful guardian
of the Constitution), this Court cannot remain a mute spectator to
the myriad dilatory tactics employed by litigants to protract civil
proceedings and permit the supervisory jurisdiction enshrined
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to be exploited to
revive legally inadmissible documents or to foster dilatory tactics
in civil proceedings.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court is
of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish
any jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or procedural irregularity
in the orders passed by the learned Civil Court. The learned Civil
Court has acted strictly in accordance with the law, and therefore,
the orders dated 07.10.2025 and 25.02.2026 passed by the
learned Civil Court stand affirmed.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)

(13 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JP:44241] [CW-6298/2026]
16. Accordingly, the present batch of writ petitions, being bereft
of any merit, stands dismissed . Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
17. It is made clear that interim orders, if any, passed by this
Court in the present proceedings shall stand vacated forthwith.
18. A copy of the present order be placed in each connected
petition.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
25-26 (DA)/JKP
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 04:53:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 05:36:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)