SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Mad) 83

S.ASHOK KUMAR
Jagadeesh – Appellant
Versus
B. M. Billan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Srinath Sridevan, Advocate. For the Respondent:

Judgment :-

As against the docket order passed in I.A.No:428 of 2005 made in O.S.No.137 of 2005 passed by the District Munsif Court, Ootacamund, directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty with penalty to receive the unstamped and unregistered document in evidence, this revision has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The mortgage deed dated 3. 2001 is a document which has to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Yet, the said deed could be admitted in evidence to establish possession only if the same is properly stamped. In that case it has to be valued as per Article 40 of the Schedule-I of the Stamp Act. If it is calculated on that basis, it should have been stamped with Rs.18,800/= x 11 times of penalty which would comes to Rs.2,06,800/=. Inspite of time given by the learned Trial Judge the plaintiff/revision petitioner has not chosen to pay the stamp duty with penalty, but has preferred this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner pressed into service a decision of the Punjab High Court in AIR 1966 Punjab 293 wherein it has been held that the executant of a document ought not to be subjected tot eh maximum pen



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top