Vineet Kothari - (1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar V/s Addl. Dist. Judge SBCWP No. 252/2004 decided on 24.11.2009 in which it has been held that in view of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the agreement in question even though inadmissible in evidence as it was not stamped and registered in accordance with the requirement of Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Law, the same could be considered only for limited collateral purposes of establishing character of possession of the defendants.
(2.) A perusal of Annex. 3 (agreement) prima facie indicates that the same is not a registered sale -deed or conveyance, but it is only an agreement allegedly executed by one Madan Lal in favour of present plaintiff - petitioner Vijay Kumar. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in light of Aforesaid judgment of this Court and the learned trial Court is directed to allow the said agreement in question to be taken on record for collateral purpose of possession only. No costs.;