Back
1974 Supreme(P&H) 100
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.D.Koshal, J.
Bhagwan Singh
Versus
Hardial Singh
Civil Revision No. 1423 of 1971,
Decided On : MAY 31, 1974
Important Points
Subject
Evidence - SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Act Referred
STAMP ACT : S.2(14)
Headnote
EVIDENCE ACT - SECONDARY EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - RAZINAMA - NOT COMPULSORILY REGISTRABLE OR LIABLE TO STAMP DUTY - SECONDARY EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for possession of land, the defendant sought to produce secondary evidence of the contents of a Razinama (settlement deed) dated 28th March 1963. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the original Razinama was compulsorily registrable and subject to stamp duty, and that no secondary evidence could be allowed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Razinama was not compulsorily registrable or liable to stamp duty, as it was merely an application to the Roving Revenue Assistant requesting him to sanction a mutation in accordance with a settlement which the parties had already arrived at orally. The purpose of the Razinama was merely to have a mutation sanctioned and its language was obviously by the scribe to express in his own way what was conveyed to him by the parties as the details of the settlement between them.
Issues: Whether the Razinama dated 28th March 1963 was compulsorily registrable or liable to stamp duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of "Instrument" in Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act and the relevant clause of Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act to hold that the Razinama was not an instrument compulsorily registrable or liable to stamp duty. The court also considered the contents of the Razinama and its circumstances, and concluded that it was merely an application to the Roving Revenue Assistant reciting the settlement already arrived at and was never meant to be a record of the settlement itself.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the defendant to produce secondary evidence of the contents of the Razinama at the trial.
1. This petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by Bhagwan Singh, one of the defendants in a suit for possession of 26 Bighas 13 biswas of land situated in village Chaunda on the basis of a gift deed and seeks the revision of an order dated the 29th of November, 1971 of the Subordinate Judge II class Malerkotla, refusing permission to the petitioner to produce secondary evidence of the contents of a document described as a deed of compromise.
2. The parties are inter-related as shown in the following pedigree table :-
(See Pedigree table on the next Page.) It appears that the gift deed abovementioned was the subject-matter of a disputed mutation which was to come up for further proceedings before the concerned Roving Revenue Assistant on the 28th of March, 1963. On that date Ishar Singh, his son Ram Singh and the latter s son Jeet Singh presented to the Roving Revenue Assistant a document of which a certified copy was produced before the trial Court. The contents of that copy, when freely translated, run thus : In the Court of R.R.A., Camp Malerkotla. Ram Singh son of Ishar Singh, Hardial Singh, Jeet Singh, Didar Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh sons of Ram Singh residents of Chaunda.......... Applicants. Versus Ishar Singh son of Basant Singh Jat of Chaunda................ Respondent. Disputed mutation of gift and inheritance regarding land of Basant Singh deceased son of Ranjit Singh resident of Chaunda - land situated in village Chaunda. We are, Ram Singh son of Ishar Singh, Gurdial Singh, Jeet Singh, Didar Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh sons of Ram Singh through Jeet Singh who is responsible for his brothers, applicants, and Ishar Singh son of Basant Singh resident of Chaunda-respondent. Whereas 45 bighas and 7 biswas of land shall be in the name of us Ram Singh and Ishar Singh by inheritance through a will of Basant Singh deceased of village Chaunda. Moreover there is a gift of 26 bighas and 13 biswas of land by Basant Singh deceased of village Chaunda in favour of Hardial Singh and others sons of Ram Singh, regarding which a settlement with Ishar Singh has taken place. The entire lot of Basant Singh s land is settled at half and half. Mutation may be sanctioned in our favour half and half. For those sons who are not present I, Ram Singh, am responsible. Therefore this Razinama has been written so that it may be used as a Sanad, Dated 28th of March, 1963. Ram Singh shall be owner of one-half and Ishar Singh shall be owner of one-half. I, Ram Singh, shall have no connection after the inheritance of Ishar Singh opens, with that one-half of the land which shall be in the name of my father Ishar Singh, and only my brother Bhagwan Singh shall be owner thereof. Therefore this Razinama is written so that it may provide a Sanad, Dated 28th of March, 1963.
I, Ram Singh, and my descendants shall have no connection with the property of
Ishar Singh and only Bhagwan Singh shall be owner thereof, Dated 28th of March,
1963.
Sd/- Ram Singh
Sd/- Jeet Singh
Sd/- Ishar Singh
Sd/- Witness Harbans Singh Sarpanch Chaunda
Sd/- Witness Mehar Singh Chaunda
Sd/- Ganda Singh Lambardar Chaunda
Sd/- Harchand Singh Lambardar Chaunda
Sd/- Kaka Singh Lambardar Chaunda
Sd/- Petition Writes No. 197
"Seal."
The copy also contains the following endorsement :
"Produced by
Ishar Singh, Ram Singh and Jeet Singh who admit the Razinama Bahmj. A new mutation
shall be entered according to rules and put up.
Sd/. R. R. A.
28th of March, 1963
Maler Kotla.
In obedience to the endorsement above extracted mutation No. 4092, was entered in the revenue records pertaining to village Chaunda and the Razinama was appended thereto but the same is now missing. Bhagwan Singh defendant who relies on the Razinama made an application to the trial Court for permission to produce secondary evidence of the contests thereof. That application was rejected by the trial Court through the impugned order on the ground that the original Razinama was co
