Point of Law: Failure to stamp a document properly does not affect the validity of the transaction embodied therein but merely renders the document inadmissible in evidence. It has noted the provisions of Section 35 of the Act of 1899 and held that, the Court before which such document is produced has the right to regularise such defect on realisation of the appropriate stamp duty and the penalty prescribed in the Act of 1899. It has held that, at the ad interim stage, the court could demand from the plaintiff sufficient amount of security to safeguard the interest of the state revenue

JUDGMENT :

1. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property, the plaintiff has sought interim protection of injunction against the defendants.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. The plaintiff had become interested in purchasing an immovable property owned by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had held negotiations and discussions with regard thereto. In such discussions, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had informed the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had taken a loan against property from Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. The defendant No. 4 had been inducted as a lesee in respect of such immovable property by virtue of a lease agreement dated August 20, 2016. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not enter into any other agreements in respect of such immovable property.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the immovable property for a total consideration of Rupees 90 lakhs. The plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the immovable property on March 5, 2019. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rupees 5 lakhs to the defendant No. 1 by a cheque dated March 5, 2019 as part consideration. He has submitted that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had agreed that, the conveyance will be executed and registered by April 15, 2019. Acting on the basis of the agreement for sale, the plaintiff, at the instance of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had paid a sum of Rs. 45,23,282/- to Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Such payment had been made by a cheque dated March 28, 2019. He has contended that, despite the plaintiff taking steps in terms of the agreement for sale, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had failed and neglected to have the Kolkata Municipal Corporation tax assessed to comply with the agreement for sale dated March 5, 2019. He has submitted that, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 50, 333/- as tax deducted at source. Consequently, the plaintiff had paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 50,73,5152/- as part payment of the consideration in terms of the agreement for sale.

4. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has submitted that, on the failure of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to have the Kolkata Municipal Corporation tax assessed in respect of the immovable property concerned, the plaintiff had done so. The plaintiff had obtained a Letter of Intent from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation from which it appeared that, the outstanding property tax in respect of the immovable property was Rs. 38,07,749/-. The plaintiff had called upon the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to honour the commitments under the agreement for sale dated March 5, 2019 which the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 failed and neglected to honour.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had taken the point of the agreement for sale dated March 5, 2019 being unregistered. He has submitted that, simply because an agreement for sale is unregistered, does not make such agreement for sale void. He has submitted that, Court can look into an unregistered agreement for sale. Be that as it may, he has submitted that, the plaintiff is ready and willing to have the original agreement for sale dated March 5, 2019 impounded and pay the stamp duty necessary in respect thereof as assessed by the appropriate authority. In support of his contentions he has relied upon 2009 Volume 4 Calcutta High Court Notes 415 (M/s. GTZ India Private Limited versus Power Electronic Engineers and others), 2010 Volume 4 Calcutta High Court Notes 18 (Sri Gopal Kumar Bhalotia and Another versus Anirudh Trade and Agencies Private Limited and Another).

6. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that, the agreement for sale dated March 5, 2019 being in respect o