On the question of registration it was held that the document is number companypulsorily registrable insofar as the subjectmatter of the suit is companycerned, viz.,
1 is inadmissible in evidence, the learned trial judge rejected the companytention taking recourse to section 36 of the Stamp Act.
On appeal by the defendants the judgment of the trial judge was reversed, inter alia, holding that the document Ext.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order Decree dated the 14th August, 1972 of the Rajasthan High Court in B. Civil Second Appeal No.
1, 3 and 4.
Badri Das Sharma for Respondents Nos.
When at the stage of arguments, the defendants companytended that the document Ext.
1 purporting to be a will of deceased Mst.
S. Desai, Sharad Manohar, S. S. Khanduja and R. K. Shukla, for the Appellant.
1 was a gift and as it involved gift of immovable property, the document was inadmissible in evidence both on the ground that it is number duly stamped and for want of registration.
Various companytentions were raise,, but the only one surviving for present companysideration is whether document Ext.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
9 65 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. The unsuccessful plaintiff, appellant in this appeal by special leave, who died pending the appeal, seeks a declaration that he is entitled to a right of worship by turn ,called Osra for 10 days in a circuit of 18 months in the temple of Kalyanji Maharaj at Village Diggi, Distt.
The suit was resisted by four amongst five defendants, the 5th defendant having number put in an appearance.
The plaintiffs second appeal to the High Court did number meet with success.
Acharaj is a will or a gift, and if the latter, whether it is admissible in evidence on the ground that it was number duly stamped and registered as required by law ?
When the plaintiff referred to the disputed document in his evidence and proceeded to prove the same, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the document was inadmissible in evidence as being number duly stamped and for want of registration.
B. L. Bhargava, S. N. Bhargava and Sobhagmal Jain for Respondent No.
The trial companyrt did number decide the, objection when raised but made a numbere Objected.
turn of worship which in the opinion of the learned trial judge movable property.
1244 of 1973.
1 dated 22nd September 1961 executed by deceased Mst.
Tonk, Rajasthan, under the will Ext.
520 of 1968.
