Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
Babulal Sharma, S/o Badri Narain Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
Rahul Maheshwari, Son Of Late Shri C.b. Gupta - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 17733 Of 2015
Decided On : 06-12-2024
Order :
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) being dissatisfied with the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in civil suit No. 4/2015 whereby the application filed by defendant under Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act of 1998’) has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant No.2 and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for specific performance and permanent injunction in which the defendant filed an application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 as well as Section 151 CPC before the trial Court that the so-called agreement dated 02.06.2004 is insufficiently stamped and unregistered, so, the said document is inadmissible in the evidence but the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel further submits that it is an admitted position that the said document is insufficiently stamped and unregistered, so the trial Court had to impound the said document and it should have send the so-called agreement to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of the stamp duty and penalty thereon.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant.
I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
It is an admitted position that the so-called agreement is insufficiently stamped unregistered. So the trial Court ought to have impounded the said document and the same should have been sent to the Collector (Stamps). So the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the trial Court qua application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 deserves to be set aside.
Petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the trial Court qua application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 stands set aside The trial Court is directed to impound the so-called agreement dated 02.06.2004 and send the same to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of the stamp duty and penalty thereon.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
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.
The trial court must adhere to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rajasthan Stamp Act regarding the impounding of inadequately stamped documents and cannot exceed its jurisdiction by addr....
Admissibility of unregistered documents affecting immovable property and the requirement for sufficient stamp duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, allowing unregistered documents to be admitted as evidence, is limited to specific pe....
The Court emphasized the power of the Authority to impound a document not properly stamped and the duty of the Court to determine the admissibility of the document based on the willingness of the par....
Objections to the admissibility of evidence must be raised at the final arguments stage after a document has been exhibited, as per the procedural fairness principle.
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
