Back
B. P. ROUTRAY
Karunakara Pradhan @ Karunakar Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Binod Chandra Padra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
B.P. Routray, J.—Heard Mr. S. Kar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner.
2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balliguda in C.S. No.74 of 2019.
3. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff and he filed the suit for specific performance of contract along with prayer for damages, mandatory injunction, delivery of possession, etc. The contract is an agreement dated 14.06.1999 for sale of land. Further, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendants furnished a Chuktinama on 11.9.2000 upon receipt of money by way of Bankers Cheque from the Plaintiff. Said Chuktinama dated 11.9.2000 has been furnished on a five rupees stamp paper, as per the Plaintiff’s case.
4. During pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff filed a petition under Order 13 Rule 8, C.P.C. praying for a direction to the authority for impounding said Chuktinama dated 11.09.2000. Learned trial court accordingly sent the document for impounding to the revenue authority, who in return submitted as per his Letter dated 28.3.2024 (Annexure-7) that, since said document was never presented for registration, question of impounding the same does not arise. Con
Agreement to sell – Impounding an agreement to sell of an immovable property after 23 years of its alleged execution, where execution itself is disputed and which was never presented for registration....
An unstamped document not presented for registration cannot be impounded after significant delay; the evidentiary value hinges on its compliance with statutory requirements.
The court upheld that technical defects in documents should not allow unfair advantages, particularly when the document’s existence is contested.
Unregistered agreements for the sale of property without possession delivery are not conveyances and do not require stamping, valid for evidence in specific performance cases.
The recital in an unregistered sale agreement governs its admissibility, and the court is empowered to pass appropriate order for impounding the agreement under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 189....
The trial Court has discretion to deny document production in a specific performance case; unregistered agreements can serve as evidence if possession was not delivered.
An agreement for a future lease contingent on construction does not constitute a lease and cannot be impounded for stamp duty until the property exists.
Once a document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be questioned later for insufficient stamping under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act.
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
