Unregistered Relinquishment Deed Cannot Be Revived By Paying Stamp Duty: Rajasthan High Court

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 3 November 2026

Case: Not stated in the source
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: Justice Ganesh Ram Meena
Citation: Not stated in the source
Statutes: Registration Act, 1908 — s.17
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 — s.35
Source: LiveLaw

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Rajasthan High Court, in a decision by Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, held that an unregistered relinquishment deed, which requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be subsequently revived by merely paying the requisite stamp duty. Such a deed remains inadmissible as evidence.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

An unregistered relinquishment deed, which is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be made admissible in evidence by merely paying the deficient stamp duty and penalty under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Registration is a distinct and mandatory requirement.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates must ensure that all documents requiring compulsory registration, such as relinquishment deeds, are duly registered to be admissible in evidence. Merely paying stamp duty and penalty will not cure the defect of non-registration. Litigants should be advised on the distinct requirements of stamp duty and registration for validity.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Relinquishment deeds require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
2Non-registration renders such deeds inadmissible as evidence.
3Paying deficient stamp duty and penalty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, does not cure the defect of non-registration.

The Legal Issue The Rajasthan High Court addressed the admissibility of an unregistered relinquishment deed. The core question was whether such a deed, which is compulsorily registrable, could be rendered admissible in evidence by subsequently paying the deficient stamp duty and penalty, or if its non-registration made it incurably inadmissible.

Court's Reasoning Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, presiding over the matter, clarified that the requirements of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, are distinct. While Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, allows for an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document to be admitted in evidence upon payment of duty and penalty, this provision does not override the mandatory registration requirement. The Court emphasized that a relinquishment deed falls under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates its compulsory registration. Failure to register such a document means it cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property, irrespective of whether stamp duty and penalty have been paid.

What Follows The Court's ruling implies that any party relying on an unregistered relinquishment deed, where registration is compulsory, will find the document inadmissible in court. The payment of stamp duty and penalty will not validate an otherwise unregistered document. Parties must ensure both proper stamping and compulsory registration for such instruments to have legal effect and be admissible as evidence.