Non-registration alone does not bar an agreement to sell from evidence in specific performance suits.

The respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance concerning the property in question, relying, inter alia, on agreements dated 04.03.1976 and 21.06.2001.

The defendants disputed the enforceability and admissibility of the agreements on the grounds that they were insufficiently stamped and unregistered; it was also pleaded that certain defendants were minors when the agreements were executed.

The trial court framed Issue No. 4 concerning the admissibility of the documents for want of proper stamp duty and registration.

Although arguments on the issue were directed to be heard first in 2011, the issue remained pending for several years owing to repeated adjournments, transfers of the suit, and substitution proceedings following the deaths of parties.

By order dated 17.08.2017, the trial court declined to decide Issue No. 4 as a preliminary issue, holding that it involved mixed questions of fact and law.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether Issue No. 4, concerning the admissibility of the agreements on account of insufficient stamping and non-registration, could be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC.

Whether an unregistered agreement to sell is admissible in a suit for specific performance in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Whether an insufficiently stamped agreement may be received in evidence before payment of the deficient stamp duty and applicable penalty under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998.

Whether the trial court’s refusal to decide Issue No. 4 as a preliminary issue warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XIV Rule 2 CPC permits preliminary determination only of a pure issue of law relating to the court’s jurisdiction or a statutory bar to the suit; issues involving mixed questions of fact and law should ordinarily be tried with the other issues.

Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 generally bars an unregistered document required to be registered from affecting immovable property or being received in evidence, but its proviso permits such a document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance; this principle was affirmed in R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri , (2023) 10 SCC 725.

Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act remains applicable where relevant.

Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 prohibits admission or reliance upon an insufficiently stamped instrument in its existing form, but permits curing the defect upon payment of the deficient stamp duty and prescribed penalty.

The Court also relied on Manoj Kumar v. Nathmal Sharma , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10748/2026, which distinguished the effect of non-registration from insufficiency of stamp duty.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction, enabling correction of legally improper procedural orders where intervention is warranted.

The Court held that the trial court was correct in finding that Issue No. 4 could not, in its entirety, be treated as a preliminary issue because admissibility and evidentiary effect could involve the nature of the documents, the pleadings, and evidence.

However, non-registration alone did not make the agreements inadmissible, since the suit was one for specific performance and the proviso to Section 49 expressly permits an unregistered agreement to sell to be received as evidence of the contract.

Insufficient stamping stood on a different footing: the documents could not be admitted in their existing form, but the defect was curable through the statutory process under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act.

Given that the stamp objection had remained procedurally unresolved for several years, the trial court could not leave it in abeyance merely because the broader issue involved mixed questions of fact and law.

The appropriate course was to impound the document and obtain a determination of the deficit duty and penalty, rather than conduct a fragmented preliminary trial.

The trial court was directed to send the document forthwith to the Collector-cum-DIG, Stamps, for impounding and determination of the deficient stamp duty within twenty days of receipt.

The concerned party was required to pay the deficit duty and penalty, if any; thereafter, the trial court was to proceed with the suit, leaving final admissibility and evidentiary effect to be decided in accordance with law and the evidence on record.

The trial court was directed to endeavour to decide the suit within nine months, while avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits, permitted the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 4 to seek substitution in accordance with law, and made no order as to costs.