Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Smt. Rukma - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Phooma @ Choti & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6390 of 2017
Decided On : 16-01-2023
STAMP ACT - INADEQUATELY STAMPED DOCUMENTS - The court emphasized the mandatory duty of the trial court under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, to impound inadequately stamped documents. The court found that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by making observations on admissibility rather than confining itself to the limited prayer for impounding, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and direct the proper procedure for handling the document.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order from 27.03.2017 regarding the handling of an inadequately stamped document, arguing that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rajasthan Stamp Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had a duty to impound the inadequately stamped document and should not have made observations regarding its admissibility, which was outside its jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the trial court was required to impound the inadequately stamped document as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rajasthan Stamp Act, and whether it exceeded its jurisdiction by commenting on the document's admissibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, the trial court is obligated to impound inadequately stamped documents and should refrain from making determinations on admissibility when the application is limited to impounding.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the document was directed to be sent to the District Collector for impounding, with the issue of admissibility to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
ORDER
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.03.2017. The relevant portion of which is reproduced herein-below:
2. Services in the instant matter is complete.
3. Vide order dated 04.08.2017, interim protection was granted and further proceedings in the court below were directed to be stayed.
4. The principal plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and pari materia provisions of Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, any document which is inadequately stamped is required to be impounded for realization of appropriate stamp duty by the Collector Stamps. In this regard, the petitioner had filed one application on 18.02.2017 but the learned court below has exceeded its jurisdiction and has given finding on the fact that even if the document in question is stamped, still it is not mandatory on the part of the trial court to admit the same in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned court below is duty bound to abide by the provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and pari materia provision of Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and when the application in question was filed with the limited prayer for impounding of stamp duty, the learned trial court should have confined the findings and directions to the limited prayer made thereupon.
5. Considering the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and relying upon the provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and pari materia provisions of Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, it is noted by this Court that the learned trial court was duty bound to send inadequately stamped 'agreement to sale' document for impounding. The learned Trial Court should have refrained itself from passing any observation on the admissibility of the document upon the application with distinct and limited prayer.
6. In the opinion of this Court, there is a prima facie palpable error in the impugned order dated 27.03.2017. The said order, and the observation made therein, is set aside. The document in question, i.e. agreement dated 15.05.1992, be sent to the District Collector for impounding and the issue of admissibility is to be decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law at the appropriate stage.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Trial Court must adhere to statutory procedures under the Indian Stamp Act regarding document admissibility and impounding instruments for insufficient stamp duty.
The court upheld that technical defects in documents should not allow unfair advantages, particularly when the document’s existence is contested.
A document admitted in evidence cannot be questioned for insufficiency of stamp duty, but courts have a mandatory duty to impound such documents regardless of any objections raised.
An insufficiently stamped and unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence; thus, it must be impounded by the trial Court for assessment of stamp duty and penalties.
Under the Indian Stamp Act, once a document is found to be insufficiently stamped, the court is duty-bound to impound the document and send it to the Collector for proper assessment and payment of th....
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
