RADHEHARI PANDEY Vs. SUKHRAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement dated 07-06-2005. In course of recording of statement of plaintiff when the agreement was tendered for making exhibit, an objection was raised by the defendant about the admissibility of the document on the ground that by the said agreement possession of the land has been handed over/transferred to the purchaser/plaintiff, therefore it requires to be stamped as a conveyance as the same cannot be treated as agreement simpliciter.

(2.) Allowing the said objection the trial Court has directed the plaintiff to deposit the deficit stamp duty together with penalty @ 10 times of the stamp duty as well as the poundage fee so that the document can be admitted in evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, after relying the judgment in the matter of Laxminarayan and others v. Omprakash and others 2008 (2) MPLJ 416 and in the matter of Satyanarayan Gaud v. Ramsingh and others 2007 (3) MPHT 286 has argued that when the defendant has raised a plea in his written statement that possession was never handed over to the plaintiff on the date of execution of agreement, the document cannot be treated as a conveyance and that the defendant cannot be allowed to raise objection regarding the admissibility of the document contrary to their pleadings. He would also submit that in any case the trial Court would not have straightway directed the plaintiff to deposit to deficit Stamp Duty, 10 times penalty and the poundage fee in view of the provision contained in Section 38 of the Stamp Act.