Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.
Sheikh Mohammed Hamid - Appellant
Versus
Paras Ram Dev - Respondent
First Appeal No. 87 of 2010
Decided On : 23-03-2020
Mr. B.P. Sharma with Mr. Yogendra Singh Rajput, Adv, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of a loan agreement that is not duly stamped, and the court's authority to consider such agreement in evidence and direct the impounding and levying of deficient stamp duty with penalty.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Loan Agreement - Section 35 of the Act of 1899 - The court discussed the admissibility of the loan agreement and the mode of proof, and highlighted the legal provisions of Section 35 of the Act of 1899. The court found that the loan agreement was not duly stamped but could still be considered in evidence, and directed the impounding of the agreement and levying of deficient stamp duty with penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the dismissal of his suit regarding a loan of Rs. 2,46,793/- taken by the respondent. The appellant claimed that the respondent had executed an agreement to repay the amount but failed to do so. The respondent denied the agreement and claimed that the suit was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loan agreement was not duly stamped but could still be considered in evidence. It disbelieved the respondent's claim and held that the appellant was entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 1,23,721/- and notice expenses of Rs. 500/-. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and directed the impounding of the agreement and levying of deficient stamp duty with penalty.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of the loan agreement, the nature of the agreement, and the entitlement of the appellant to the balance amount and notice expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the admissibility of the loan agreement despite being not duly stamped, the credibility of the evidence presented, and the entitlement of the appellant to the balance amount and notice expenses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, directed the impounding of the agreement, and ordered the respondent to pay the balance amount and notice expenses to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant has preferred this Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-01-2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Gariyaband, District Raipur in Civil Suit No.4-B/2009 whereby and whereunder he dismissed the appellant''s suit.
2. This is admitted by respondent that he had taken loan of Rs. 1,23,000 from the appellant without interest in the year 2005. On 13-1-2006 he had given blank stamp paper to the appellant, in the back side of third page of the said stamp paper he endorsed that the amount which he had taken he will repay it by cutting Rabi crop. In the year 2005, he had given 140 quintal paddies, in the year 2006, 65 quintal and 12 kg. paddies, @ Rs.600/- per quintal total worth Rs. 1,23,000/- thus he paid him Rs.1,23,000/-. He had received the notice and did not reply it.
3. In brief, the appellant''s case is that in different years and on different dates respondent had taken total loan Rs. 2,46,793/-. On 14-1-2006 he had executed an agreement. On 08-07-2007 he promised in writing to repay the balance amount Rs.1,23,721/- but he did not pay the same.
4. In brief, the respondent''s case is that the appellant is money lander, he had not executed any document on 08-07-2007. The appellant told him that his counsel had sent the notice under misconception and it need not be replied. The suit is barred by limitation.
5. By the impugned judgment and decree the trial Court dismissed the appellant''s suit. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the instant appeal.
6. In brief the appellant''s case regarding this appeal is that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record. The trial Court overlooked the entries of account book which was maintained in the regular course of business by him.
7. Point for determination :-
There are following points for determination in the case in hand:-
(i) Whether on 14.01.2006 Rs. 2,46,793/- was due on respondent?
(ii) Whether on 14.01.2006 respondent had executed an agreement assuring the appellant that he will pay the said amount?
(iii) Whether respondent had assured appellant on 8-7-2007 in writing that he will pay the balance amount Rs. 1,23,721/- ?
(iv) Whether the appellant is the money lender, if so then its effect ?
(v) Whether the appellant is entitled to get balance amount of Rs. 1,23,721/-and notice expenses Rs. 500/- from respondent?
(vi) Reliefs and costs.
Points for determination No.(i), (ii) and (iii)-Findings with reasons:-
8. The scope of issue No.1 covers the scope of point for determination No.(i).
9. The Trial Court has not framed issues regarding points for determination No. (ii) and (iii), though it ought to have been done by the Trial Court. The evidence available on record shows that the appellant and the respondent have adduced evidence regarding these points for determination. The evidence available on record is sufficient to enable this Court to pronounce the judgment. Non-framing of additional issues regarding these points of determination does not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. Thus, looking to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in brevity ''the CPC''), this Court finds that it may pronounce the judgment in this appeal.
10. Looking to the convenience points for determination Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) are being disposed off simultaneously.
11. During the statement of P.W. 1 Sheikh Mohd. Hamid Counsel for the respondent objected that Ex. P-1 cannot be marked on agreement because that is unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The trial Court marked on said agreement Ex. P-1 observing that it would be admissible in evidence if it is proved according to law, merely by marking Ex. P-1 the said document would not be admissible in evidence.
12. The Trial Court also marked the diary as Ex. P-2.
13. The provisions of Section 35(a) of the Act of 1899 are relevant in the case in hand which are reproduced below :-
''35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, et
