Rajasthan High Court
Badri Lal vs Gopal Dadhich S/O Shri ... on 6 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26159/2018
1. Badri Lal, (Since Deceased Through Legal
Representatives)
2. Ramswarup S/o Late Shri Badri Lal Ji Laddha, Resident
Of Lal Bihari Ka Chowk, Bundi.
3. Chandraprakash S/o Late Shri Badri Lal Ji Laddha, Aged
About 58 Years, Resident Of Emmanueal School Road,
Rajmarg Ki Gali, Bundi Tehsil And Dist. Bundi (Raj.)
4. Kanta Bai Widow Of Late Shri Badri Lal Ji Laddha,
Resident Of Lal Bihari Ka Chowk, Bundi. (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Gopal Dadhich S/o Shri Niranjanlal, Aged About 53 Years,
Resident Of House No. 1-A-5 Jawahar Nagar Housing Board,
Matunda Road, Bundi Tehsil And Dist. Bundi (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
06/08/2021
Service is complete.
No one puts in appearance on behalf of respondent/s.
Short point involved in the present writ petition is whether
the learned District Judge, Bundi could have directed the
petitioner to deposit the amount of the Stamp Duty and penalty in
spite of impounding the concerned document for assessment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Indralal & Anr. Vs. Saligram
& Anr., reported in RLW 2011 (2) RJ 1007 (HC) to submit that
the course of assessment of Stamp Duty was not available with
the learned District Judge.
I have considered the submissions.
(2 of 2) [CW-26159/2018]
In the case of Indralal & Anr. Vs. Saligram & Anr., the Court
has held as under:-
"14.A conjoint reading of provisions of Section
39 and 42 of the Act makes it abundantly clear
that if the petitioners/plaintiffs are ready and
willing to remit the amount of deficient stamp
duty and penalty as provided by proviso to
Section 39 of deficient stamp duty and penalty
as provided by proviso to Section 39 of the Act
then, on payment of such duty and penalty, the
document has to be admitted in evidence by the
Court and only an authenticated copy thereof
alongwith a certificate in writing stating the
amount of duty and penalty levied and such
amount recovered is required to be sent to the
Collector (Stamp).
15. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, in considered opinion of this court,
the trial court has seriously erred in refusing to
refer the document to the Collector (Stamp) for
determination of the deficient stamp duty and
the penalty payable solely on the ground that
the petitioners/plaintiffs have not expressed
their readiness and willingness to pay the
deficient stamp duty and penalty. However, in
view of the provisions of Section 39 (1) of the
Act, a document not duly stamped cannot be
admitted in evidence unless the duty with which
same chargeable or the deficient duty and the
penalty as determined by the Collector (Stamp)
under the provisions of Section 37 or in terms
as provided by proviso to Section 37, is duly
paid. "
Keeping in view above, this writ petition is allowed. The
order impugned dated 08.10.2018 is set aside and it is directed
that the concerned document shall forthwith be impounded and
referred to the Collector (Stamp) in terms of provisions of Section
37 and the proviso to Section 39 for payment of appropriate
Stamp Duty, as arises by it.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
TN/100
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
