Point of law:
Section 36, however, provides for a 'stand alone' clause. It categorically prohibits a court of law from reopening a matter in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument in the event the same has been admitted in evidence.

ORDER :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. The matter today has come up for orders on an application preferred by the appellant's counsel Mr. G.R. Goyal under Section 39 read with Section 42 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the present application are noted here in below. The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 20.01.2006. The respondents being the alleged executants of the agreement appeared before the trial court and raised a pertinent objection made in the written statement regarding admissibility of the said document on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered and thus, could not be admitted in evidence. Despite the pertinent objection being taken, neither was any attempt to furnish the deficit stamp duty made by the appellant herein nor was any request made to the trial court for impounding the said document and charging the stamp duty. The trial court, framed a pertinent issue No. 7 regarding this objection of the respondents. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit against the appellant by holding that the agreement was not admissible in evidence vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2011 in Civil Original Suit No. 52/2006.

3. The appellant has preferred the instant first appeal being aggrieved of the judgment passed by the trial court, wherein, an objection is taken that the finding recorded by the trial court upon the issue No. 7 is erroneous because the agreement had already been exhibited by the trial court and once the same had been exhibited without any objection, it cannot be held in the retrospective that it is not admissible in evidence. At ground No. (C) of the appeal, the appellant raised a pertinent objection that the trial court fell into grave error while holding that requisite stamp duty was payable on the document; that the same was not properly stamped and that if at all the trial court's view on this aspect is held to be correct, the case should be remanded back to the trial court for following the procedure laid down under Section 42 and 37 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. Also, regarding the requirement of getting the document registered, it has been pleaded at ground No. (D) of the appeal that as the possession had not been handed over to the purchaser, there was no requirement of getting the document registered.

4. Mr. G.R. Goyal, learned counsel representing the appellant while arguing on the application under Section 39 read with Section 42 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal [2007 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 283]; Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama, AIR 2018 SC 3057 and the judgment of the Single Bench of this court in the case of Jeeta Ram & Ors. Vs. Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bikaner & Ors. [2010 WLC (Raj.) 155] and urged that a mandate is cast upon the trial court by law to impound an document in case the same is found insufficiently stamped and that the finding recorded in the impugned judgment to this extent is bad in the eye of law. He further urged that even the High Court, while examining the matter in appeal can direct impounding of the document at this stage and the same may be sent to the appropriate authority for charging the appropriate stamp duty thereupon. He, thus implored the court to accept the application and prayed that the said document may be impounded for charging of appropriate stamp duty.

5. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents, relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Development Consultant Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 564 and urged that the trial court was absolutely justified in holding that the document was not admissible in evidence as per Section 49 of the Registration Act. He contended that there is no prayer of the appellant that the document should be u