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

2017 Supreme(MP) 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Radu s/o Balu Bhilwal Bhil and others - Petitioners
Versus
Jhitra s/o Badiya Meda Bhil and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 4376 of 2016
Decided On : 17-01-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shri Ayushman Choudhary
For the Respondents: Shri J.B. Dave

: Admissibility of unregistered and insufficiently stamped agreements in suits for specific performance.

Headnote:Stamp Duty - Agreement to Sell - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 33, 35, 38; Registration Act, 1908, Section 49 - The court discussed the admissibility of an unregistered and insufficiently stamped agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance. It referred to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act and cited relevant case law to determine that such documents can be looked into for limited collateral purpose. The court emphasized the requirement for payment of duty and penalty under the Indian Stamp Act when possession is handed over at the time of execution of the agreement.

Fact of the Case:

The defendant filed a petition challenging the rejection of their objection regarding an unregistered and insufficiently stamped agreement to sell during evidence presented by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and possession of agricultural land.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's decision that the agreement to sell cannot be marked as exhibit unless impounded under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.

Issues:

Admissibility of unregistered and insufficiently stamped agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that such documents can be looked into for limited collateral purpose but emphasized the requirement for payment of duty and penalty under the Indian Stamp Act when possession is handed over at the time of execution of the agreement.

Final Decision:

The writ petition was dismissed.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

This petition is filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2016 by which his objection taken during evidence of plaintiff has been rejected.

2. Respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration & possession in respect of agricultural land on various survey numbers. The suit was filed on the ground that plaintiff has mortgaged the suit land with the defendants as security for taking loan of Rs.65,000/- and after repayment of loan in the month of February, 2004 the defendants are not handing over possession of the suit land back to them.

3. After notice defendants/petitioners appeared before the trial Court and filed the written statement stating that the plaintiffs have agreed to sell the suit land for a total consideration of Rs.90,000/- and part payment was made, agreement to sell was executed in their favour and the possession was handed over. The transaction of loan and mortgage between the plaintiff and the defendant were specifically denied. By way of counter claim defendants sought the relief of specific performance.

4. After framing the issues evidence of the plaintiffs started and during cross examination of the plaintiff defendants put the agreement dated 10.06.2002 before the witness and tried to get the said agreement to sell marked as exhibit. Such a conduct was objected by the plaintiffs that the said document cannot be taken on record and marked as exhibit as the same was not registered and properly stamped. Learned trial Court has accepted the objection taken by the plaintiff by the impugned order, hence the present petition.

5. Shri Ayushman Choudhary, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said document can be looked into for collateral purpose in spite of being unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The trial Court should have considered the provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act especially the proviso wherein in a suit for specific performance the unregistered documents can be looked into for collateral purpose. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. Reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2569 and Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1383.

6. In reply Shri Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that even unregistered document can be looked into but it should have been sufficiently and properly stamped. He has placed reliance over the decisions in the case of Atmaram s/o Ramchandra Mahajan and another v. Anil Kumar s/o Shikharchand Mahajan reported in 2011 (3) MPLJ 407.

7. During cross examination of the plaintiffs defendants tried to get exhibited the agreement to sell dated 10.06.2002 which is admittedly neither registered nor sufficiently stamped. Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction that he be declared as land owner of agricultural land and the defendant be directed to hand over possession. By way of counter claim defendants sought the relief of specific performance on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 10.06.2002 which was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.50/-.

8. In the present case there is a controversy about the non registration as well as insufficiently stamped agreement dated 10.06.2002. So far as the registration of agreement to sell is concerned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akshay Doogad v. State of M.P and others reported in 2016 (2) MPLJ 156 has held that the said agreement can be looked into for limited collateral purpose. Para-9 of the said judgment is reproduced below:

9. The Supreme Court has opined that when an unregistered document is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that i




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 Back to top