Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 9th November 2010, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur held the document, in question to be an agreement to sell and directed the petitioner to get the document impounded from Collector, Stamps, Jaipur in accordance with law so as to make it admissible in evidence.

2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract for the properties, as described in para no. 3 of the plaint, which is a field bearing khasra numbers 281/308 measuring 10 biswas, khasra no. 285/309 measuring 14 biswas, khasra no. 286 measuring 1 bigha 16 biswas, total 3 bighas situated in village Durgapura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (the corresponding changed khasra numbers measuring in hectares are indicated in para no.2 of the petition). It is averred that on 25th January, 2003, the defendant through its Chief Trustee Manak Raj entered into an oral agreement to sell the land in question for a total consideration of Rs. 1.50 cr. and the Chief Trustee received 11,000/- rupees in cash as advance. On account of certain reasons, the oral agreement could not be acted upon and the defendant requested for increase of sale consideration and the sale consideration was increased from 1.50 cr. to 4.50 cr. Pursuant to the oral agreement, a written acknowledgment (agreement) was reduced to writing on 21.8.2009. In the agreement itself, the defendant admitted the fact of oral agreement of 25.1.2003. It is averred that on 18.10.2009, the defendant trust agreed to hand over the possession to the petitioner and receive the balance consideration and on that agreement also, Manak Raj, Chief Trustee put his signatures. It is further averred that the defendant Trust had allowed the plaintiff and her husband to raise the construction on an area of about 400 sq. yards, which was accordingly raised by the petitioner. However, the brother and the son of the Chief Trustee unauthorizedly demolished the construction so raised by the petitioner. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract on the value of Rs. 3,42,30,175/-, whereupon the court fee of Rs. 6,43,276/- was submitted. The petitioner implored the court to decree the suit.

3. The respondent-defendant denied the averments made in the plaint. He came out with a case that the sale deed was got executed after playing a fraud on Manak Raj.

4. Based on the pleadings, the court framed the issues and the trial of the suit began. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff intended to exhibit a document i.e. an agreement to sell, but the learned trial court did not allow the petitioner-plaintiff to exhibit the document unless it was duly impounded in accordance with the provisions of law and passed an order dated 9th November, 2010, which has been impugned by the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant materail on record including the impugned order dated 9th November, 2010.

6. In the instant case, a very short question, which springs up for consideration is as to whether the document in question is an agreement to sell or an acknowledgment of oral agreement and further as to whether the said document is admissible in evidence sans being impounded under the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899?

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the language of document i.e. agreement to sell (Annexure-2) and canvassed that prior to this document coming into existence, the parties entered into an oral agreement, which was later-on reduced to writing and as such the said agreement to sell cannot be said to be an agreement. It is, in-fact, an acknowledgment of the oral agreement having taken place between the parties. Hence, this document is not required to be impounded under Section 35 of the Stamps Act and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document