Back
High Court Of Delhi
DHANRAJ GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
SAVITRI MALHOTRA - Respondent
Decided On : 03/01/1996
EXECUTION OF DECREE - STAMP PAPERS - DECREE NOT INSCRIBED ON STAMP PAPERS - VALIDITY - SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE - TECHNICAL LACUNAS - DELAY IN EXECUTION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - LIMITATION ACT, 1963, SECTION 5 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, ORDER 20 RULE 7, ORDER 47.
Fact of the Case:
A suit for partition was filed in 1967 and a decree was passed in 1971 in favor of the decree-holder. The decree-holder filed an execution petition in 1981, which was resisted by the judgment debtor's legal heirs. The appellant, a bona fide purchaser of the property, filed objections to the execution of the decree, arguing that the decree was not executable as it was not inscribed on stamp papers. The appellant also filed various other objections, including that the decree-holder had given consent for the sale of the property to the appellant and that the execution was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the decree was valid even though it was not inscribed on stamp papers. The court relied on several precedents holding that a decree is not invalid merely because it is not drawn on a stamp paper. The court also held that the appellant could not take advantage of the technicality that the decree was not inscribed on stamp papers to defeat the substantial justice of the case. The court further held that the delay in execution of the decree was condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the appellant had not been prejudiced by the delay.
Issues: 1. Whether a decree is invalid if it is not inscribed on stamp papers? 2. Whether a litigant can take advantage of a technicality to defeat the substantial justice of a case? 3. Whether the delay in execution of a decree can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A decree is not invalid merely because it is not drawn on a stamp paper. The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State and it has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality. A just claim cannot be defeated just because the writing of the instrument ends on the first sheet of paper and the second sheet has been crossed with a signature of the executant, provided the evidence satisfies the Court that the second sheet was in fact used at the very time the instrument was drawn. 2. A litigant cannot legitimately take advantage of mere technicalities to suffocate the substantial justice. The courts are meant for giving substantial justice to the parties and a document cannot be made invalid merely because the same has not been drawn on a stamp paper. 3. The delay in execution of a decree can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the appellant has not been prejudiced by the delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeals with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000, which the appellant was directed to pay to the respondent within 4 weeks from the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6th November, 1995 delivered in E. A. No. 177/94 and 178/94. The brief facts which are necessary to decide this appeal are recapitulated as under :
( 2 ) IN the year 1967, a suit for partition was filed by Chiranjeet Lal Malftotra against Ram Nath Malhotra of House No. J-III 30, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The suit was decreed in the year 1971 and judgment and decree was passed in favour of Chiranjeet Lal Malhotra against Ram Nath Malhotra.
( 3 ) AFTER considerable litigation, execution petition was filed on 19th September, 1981 for execution of the said decree. Notice of execution petition was directed to be issued to R. N. Malhotra, Judgment debtor, who appeared in person in court on 20th October 1981 and was allowed to file reply. R. N. Malhotra expired on 4th November, 1981. Immediately thereafter, notices were directed to be issued to the legal heirs of the judgment debtor. Notices were served on the legal heirs almost after a year.
( 4 ) BEFORE the notices could be served on the legal heirs, Smt. Santosh Malhotra, widow of the Judgment debtor R. N. Malhotra by means of a sale deed transferred the whole of the property bearing No. J-III/30, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi to one Shri Dhanraj Gupta and possession of the first floor of the property was given to him.
( 5 ) ON 20th November, 1981, the court was informed that no decree was framed in the suit and the decree-holder was directed to file a certified copy of the decree sheet on 18th January, 1982. Non-judicial stamp papers of Rs. 300 were filed by the counsel for the decree-holder for preparing the decree. By 1st February, 1982, it was ordered that the office should assess the quantum and prepare the decree sheet and in case the stamp papers filed by the decree-holder were in order, the decree sheet should be prepared.
( 6 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that the legal representatives of the judgment debtors were substituted on 28th July, 1982 and on 5th November, 1982, warrants of possession were issued.
( 7 ) THE execution application No. 67/83 was filed by the decree-holder with the prayer that warrants of possession against Dhanraj Gupta who were in actual possession of the property be issued. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that it appeared that warrant of possession were obstructed by Dhanraj Gupta, appellant and consequently execution application No. 232184 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by decree-holder. Dhanraj Gupta objector filed a reply to the application. In the application, it is mentioned that he was a bona fide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration and had no knowledge of any dispute relating to the property or of passing of the decree. It was further submitted that he was in lawful possession of the property and the decree-holder cannot legally take possession from him. It would be appropriate to reiterate the objections which were taken, by the Objector. The same are reproduced as under :
"a. The objector was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. B. The property has been duly entered into the records of Land and Development Office in the name of objector. C. After the purchase of the property, the objector and members of his family are in complete occupation and possession of the same. D. By his conduct, the decree holder was stopped from taking possession from the objector as he was assured that the property was free from all encumbrances and was not the subject matter of any dispute in any court of law and the decree-holder did not object to the sale of the property to the objector and even otherwise did not bring to the knowledge of the objector that the property, being sold, was the subject matter of some litigation. E. The execution was in collusion with Mrs. R. N. Malhotra as the decree-holder did not file the execution for more than ten years after passing of the decree.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
