Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9032 OF 2013

@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20721 OF 2008)

OMPRAKASH

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

LAXMINARAYAN & ORS.

…RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific

performance of contract, possession and permanent

injunction in respect of un-irrigated land having

an area of 0.506 hectares bearing Survey No. 16012

in Village Arniapitha situated within Tahsil Jaora

in District Ratlam in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

It is founded on an agreement to sell dated 27^th

December, 2000. It is the case of the plaintiffs

that the properties in question were delivered to

them on payment of the part consideration money in

pursuance of the agreement to sell and such a

Page 2

JUDGMENT

recital finds place in the said agreement.

Paragraph 1 of the agreement to sell reads as

under:

“1.That while selling the aforesaid

land I the seller, have received Rs.

1,15,000/- (Rupees one lac fifteen

thousand) cash as a token amount

before the witnesses and, by remaining

present at the spot, actual physical

possession has been handed over to the

purchaser,

and

after

receiving

remaining sale consideration amount

Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five

thousand) from the purchaser within a

year I, the purchaser, will get the

sale deed of the said land registered

in the name of the purchaser.”

The defendants in the written statement,

however, denied the assertion of the plaintiffs and

stated that no agreement to sell was ever executed

and possession given. On the basis of the pleading

and the written statement, the trial court framed

several issues. During the course of the trial the

agreement to sell was sought to be proved and

admitted in evidence by the plaintiffs’ witness

Shankarlal. This was objected to by defendant no.

1. Its admissibility was questioned on the ground

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

that the agreement to sell in question contains a

recital that possession has been handed over to the

purchaser and, therefore, it is a conveyance over

which the stamp duty as indicated in Schedule 1A of

the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as substituted by M.P.

Act 22 of 1990 is required to be affixed. It is

pointed out that the agreement to sell in question

is on a stamp paper of Rs. 50 only. The submission

made by defendant no. 1 found favour with the trial

court and it held the agreement to sell to be

inadmissible in evidence as it has not been

sufficiently stamped. It further observed that if

the plaintiffs want to produce the said document in

evidence then they can make proper application as

envisaged under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act,

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. While doing

so, the trial court observed as follows:

“………Therefore, it is found that sale

agreement dated 27.12.2000 due to

mention of possession being handed

over, should be stamped like a

conveyance. In the sale agreement the

cost of the land is mentioned as

Rs.1,40,000 and its 7 ½ per cent

comes to Rs. 10,500/-. Therefore, it

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

is concluded that the sale agreement

can be admissible in evidence only on

being on stamp of Rs. 10,500/-.

Therefore, it is concluded that the

sale agreement is not properly

stamped, therefore, not admissible in

evidence.

Thus, objection of

defendant No. 1 is allowed sale

agreement dated 27.12.2000 is refused

to be admitted in evidence. If the

plaintiff wants to produce the said

documents in evidence then he may make

proper application under Section 35 of

the Stamp Act on the next date.”

Plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid order

before the High Court in a writ petition filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

inter alia