Tej Singh vs Ishawariya And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7696 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4736/2008

Tej Singh S/o Gyarsiya, aged about 55 years, R/o Jaraila, Tehsil
Rupbas, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
                                                          ----Plaintiff-Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. Ishawariya s/o late Shri Dalchand R/o Jaraila Tehsil Rupbas,
District Bharatpur
2. Mahendra Singh S/o late Shri Dalchand R/o Jaraila Tehsil
Rupbas, District Bharatpur
3. Nemi Chand S/o late Shri Dalchand R/o Jaraila Tehsil Rupbas,
District Bharatpur
4. Jagdish Prasad S/o late Shri Dalchand R/o Jaraila Tehsil
Rupbas, District Bharatpur
5. Smt. Phoolwati D/o late Shri Dalchand and W/o Prem Sing
R/o Kumheri, Tehsil Sainpau District Dholpur
6. Smt. Rajkumari D/o late late Shri Dalchand and W/o Binde @
Chandrasen R/o Kumheri, Tehsil Sainpau District Dholpur
                                                ----Defendants-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

08/12/2022

By this writ petition the petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the

order dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Civil Judge No.1, Bayana,

District Bharatpur whereby the application filed on behalf of the

respondents was allowed and it has been held that the agreement

dated 15.07.2003 is inadmissible as evidence.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a

suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 15.07.2003.

During the proceedings before the learned trial Court

(2 of 3) [CW-4736/2008]

objection was raised by the defendants by filing an application

with regard to admissibility of the said document as the same was

neither appropriately stamped nor it was registered.

Learned trial Court vide order dated 25.03.2008 allowed the

application and held that the said document was inadmissible as

evidence.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-

plaintiff is willing to make the deficit stamp.

In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner-

plaintiff relied upon the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of

this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Bhanwar

Lal Vs. Gopal Lal [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4393/2019]

decided on 09.12.2019.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the

writ petition and submitted that no efforts have been made by the

petitioner-plaintiff requesting learned trial Court for sending the

document for determination of appropriate stamp duty.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff deserves to

be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the suit in question is a suit for

specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.07.2003;

secondly, in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration

Act, an unregistered document can be admitted in evidence in a

suit for specific performance of such agreement; thirdly, in view of

provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, the document

can be admitted in evidence on payment of appropriate stamp

duty.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed.

The impugned order dated 25.03.2008 is quashed and set aside

(3 of 3) [CW-4736/2008]

and learned trial Court is directed to impound the agreement to

sell dated 15.07.2003 and send it for determination of appropriate

stamp duty within a period of 15 days after receiving the certified

copy of this court. The concerned Collector Stamps shall

determine the stamp duty payable on such document within a

period of one month from receipt of the document. Office is

directed to send a copy of this matter to the concerned trial Court.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

AARZOO ARORA /24

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)