HAKIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By means of the impugned orders the stamp affixed by petitioner has been declared to be illegal only on the ground that the same was purchased though in the name of Sri Hakim Singh but mentioning wrong name of the father of Sri Hakim Singh. Reliance is placed by respondents-authorities on Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1899") but a perusal thereof nowhere shows that if the stamp is not purchased in the name of executor of instrument, concerned instrument itself would be treated to be without any proper stamp and can be impounded.

(3.) In view of above, I do not find that Section 33 has any application in this matter. Learned Standing Counsel, however, sought to place reliance on Section 29 of Act, 1899 to suggest that since expenses of providing proper stamp in case of an instrument of sale has to be borne by purchaser of property, therefore, if in a particular case the purchaser has not given correct description in the stamp, it will amount to non providing expenses by purchaser and being in violation of Section 29, the document will be deemed to be without any sufficient stamp and, therefore, under Section 33 the instrument can be impounded.