A sale agreement must comply with the Indian Stamp Act requirements to be admissible in evidence; failure to do so invalidates the agreement's enforceability.

1. This is defendant's first appeal under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court allowing respondent / plaintiff's suit for specific performance for sale of land together with superstructure admeasuring 1008 sq.ft. bearing Nazul Sheet No.28, Plot No.21/1, Khaparganj, Bilaspur.

2. The respondent / plaintiff (henceforth 'the plaintiff') preferred the suit on pleadings that the appellant / defendant (henceforth 'the defendant') executed notarised agreement dated 4-10-2008 for sale of the suit property and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.6.00 lacs on the date of agreement itself. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within 3 months and also agreed to handover possession of two shops built over the suit property, but possession was not delivered. Subsequently, defendant avoided to execute the sale deed despite repeated request by the plaintiff, therefore, legal notice dated 13-5-2009 was served on the defendant, but still the sale deed was not executed. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant denied to have executed the agreement or receiving Rs.6.00 lacs. He pleaded that the non - judicial stamp of Rs.50/- was not purchased by the defendant nor possession of two shops was ever promised to be delivered or delivered to the plaintiff. The State Government has never issued any lease in favour of defendant nor any application for renewal has been made nor any assurance in this regard was extended.

4. Before the trial Court the plaintiff examined himself as PW - 1 and his witnesses Gajpati Chandrakar and Dr. (Ku.) Sunanda Dege as PW - 2 & PW - 3 respectively whereas the defendant examined himself as DW - 1 and his witness Pramod Jain as DW - 2.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit on findings that execution of agreement and receipt of Rs.6.00 lacs by the defendant has been proved. The trial Court also found that defendant's plea that the suit property was valued at Rs.50.00 lacs on the date of agreement has not been proved.

6. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / defendant, would submit that the agreement (Ex.P / 1) is not admissible in evidence because it carries recital about delivery of possession on the date of agreement, therefore, the document would require payment of stamp duty and registration as conveyance. It is also argued that on the date of agreement the suit property was valued at Rs.50.00 lacs, therefore, the agreement is suspicious as the defendant has never signed any such agreement in favour of the plaintiff. It is vehemently highlighted that if the whole amount was paid on the date of agreement itself what was the reason for non - execution of sale deed on the date of agreement itself.

7. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff, per contra, would submit that the document Ex.P / 1 was exhibited without objection by the defendant, therefore, now the plea of non - admissibility of document cannot be raised. Learned counsel would further argue that the trial Court's view is a probable view of the issue, therefore, no interference is called for. Learned counsel would next submit that a notarised agreement carries more value and binds the parties.

8. To buttress their respective contentions, learned counsel appearing for both the parties would place reliance upon the decisions rendered in Parakunnan Veetill Joseph's Son Mathew v. Nedumbara Kuruvila's Son and Others , 1987 Supp SCC 340 : AIR 1987 SC 2328 ; Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad v. Savjibha