Bhanwar Lal vs The District Judge, Sirohi

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2008 Supreme(Raj) 1416

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Bhanwar Lal - Appellant
Versus
The District Judge, Sirohi & Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7709 of 2007.
Decided On : 29-01-2008

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Arora, Advocate.

Important Points

If the original document is not carrying requisite stamp duty, permission to lead its secondary evidence cannot be granted.

Subject

Civil Law - Contract Law

Act Referred

EVIDENCE ACT : S.65

Headnote

The court held that the learned trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in relation to an agreement not carrying requisite stamp duty. It was established that if the original document is not carrying requisite stamp duty, permission to lead its secondary evidence cannot be granted. The deficiency in stamp duty cannot be filled up on the copy of the document. The agreement in question was allegedly executed on Rs.20/- stamp though it was chargeable with stamp duty in an amount of Rs.100/-. The refusal by the learned trial court to permit secondary evidence was found to be legal and there was no scope for interference.

Fact of the Case:

The court found that the learned trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in relation to an agreement not carrying requisite stamp duty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the refusal by the learned trial court to permit secondary evidence was legal and there was no scope for interference.

Issues: The issue was whether the learned trial court committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in relation to an agreement not carrying requisite stamp duty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that if the original document is not carrying requisite stamp duty, permission to lead its secondary evidence cannot be granted. The deficiency in stamp duty cannot be filled up on the copy of the document.

Final Decision: The writ petition was rejected and the petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. - Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 12.11.2007 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in relation to an agreement admittedly not carrying requisite stamp duty.

2. It remains settled proposition of law (vide State of Bihar v. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Brothers Ltd. : AIR 1962 SC 110 , Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao & Ors. : AIR 1971 SC 1070 and Shanker Lal & Ors. v. The Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Shahpura & Ors. : 2006 (3) RLW 2049) that if the original document is not carrying requisite stamp duty, permission to lead its secondary evidence cannot be granted for the fundamental reason that deficiency in stamp duty cannot be filled up on the copy of the document. The learned trial court has found that the agreement in question was allegedly executed on Rs.20/- stamp though as per Item No.5 (c) of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Stamp Act as applicable at the relevant time, such document was chargeable with stamp duty in an amount of Rs.100/-. The document cannot be validated by recovery of stamp duty and penalty for want of the original. Refusal by the learned trial court to permit secondary evidence cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous from any angle. There is no scope for interference.

3. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected.Petition dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document