Upon identifying an insufficiently stamped instrument, a court is legally obligated to either facilitate the payment of the requisite stamp duty and penalty by the parties or forward the instrument to the competent authority for adjudication; mere storage of the document is procedurally improper under the statutory framework.

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.01.2026, passed by learned District Judge, Jhalawar, in Civil Suit No.121/2024, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff–respondent under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1899”) corresponding to Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1998”) read with Section 49(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1908”) has been allowed. The learned trial Court, while holding that the partition agreement in question is unregistered and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, directed that the said document be impounded and placed in record in “Part D” of the case file.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff–respondent instituted a suit for partition and possession of joint family property. In response, the defendant–petitioner filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint.

2.1 During the course of proceedings, the plaintiff–respondent filed an application under Section 35 of the Act of 1899 read with Section 49(c) of the Act of 1908, contending that the defendant had produced a document during the plaintiff’s evidence and sought to rely upon it in cross-examination. It was submitted that the said document, being a partition agreement, was neither duly stamped nor registered and, therefore, was inadmissible in evidence. Accordingly, a prayer was made that the document should not be exhibited until compliance with the statutory requirements under the aforesaid provisions.

2.2 The defendant–petitioner filed a reply to the said application. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 17.12.2016, disposed of the application observing that mere confrontation of the document during cross-examination does not amount to proof of its contents, and that the burden to prove the document lies upon the defendant, which is to be discharged at the stage of his evidence.

2.3 Aggrieved thereby, the defendant–petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing number S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1447/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2025, directing that the application filed by the plaintiff- respondent be restored to its original position and reconsidered afresh in light of the provisions of the Act of 1998. It was further directed that, if upon such reconsideration the trial Court finds the document to be insufficiently stamped, it shall follow the procedure prescribed under law for impounding the same.

2.4 However, thereafter, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 19.01.2026, allowed the application and held that the partition agreement in question, being unregistered, is inadmissible in evidence. The Court further directed that the document be impounded and placed in record in “Part D” of the case file. Notwithstanding the same, the trial Court did not forward the document to the competent authority, i.e., Collector (Stamps), for proper recovering the stamp duty in accordance with law.

2.5 Aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2026, the defendant–petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court had issued a specific direction that, in the event the learned trial Court finds the document to be insufficiently stamped, it shall follow the procedure prescribed under law for impounding the same. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to comply with the said direction and has merely ordered that the document be impounded and kept in record, without adhering to the statutory procedure.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that such non- compliance has ca