HARDAN SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for respondents.

(2.) UDAIVANSH Narain Singh executed a registered sale-deed on 12- 1-1971 in favour of Bhavi Chand the elder brother of the petitioner Hardan Singh. Thereafter petitioner filed O. S. No. 1327 of 1988 against his brother Bhavi Chand pleading that the transaction was benami and plaintiff was the real owner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 10-1-1991 by VIIth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut. The operative portion of the judgment/decree is to the effect that plaintiff's suit is decreed ex parte with cost and it is declared that plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the house in dispute bearing No. 273 (which was subject-matter of the sale-deed ). It appears that afterwards some application was filed before the Court which decreed the suit and thereupon the Court passed an order on 6-8-1992 directing that the Registrar should make note on the original sale-deed that true owner was Hardan Singh Advocate. Neither the copy of the application nor complete copy of the order has been filed alongwith this writ petition. The original sale- deed was thereafter produced before the Sub-Registrar by the petitioner, and the Sub Registrar on 29-8- 1992 on the sale-deed endorsed that Hardan Singh Advocate was the true owner. It was further mentioned that it was done in pursuance of order of civil Court dated 6-8-1992. It appears that similar endorsement was also made in the relevant register kept in the office of the Registrar. On the basis of the said entry, proceedings under Section 47-A Stamp Act was initiated against the petitioner and deficiency of Rs. 32,978. 50 was determined. The order was passed by A. D. M. (Finance and Revenue) dated 11-12-1996 in case No. 1970 of 1992-93 and through the said order effect of the aforesaid endorsement was treated to be a fresh deed. Reference was also made to Sections 13 and 14 of the Stamp Act. According to Section 14 "no second instrument chargeable with duty shall be written upon a piece of stamped paper upon which an instrument, chargeable with duty, has already been written. "

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, both the impugned orders are quashed on the condition that within three months the petitioner again produces the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar who shall score off the subsequent endorsement made by him on 29-8-1992 and if any endorsement was made on the register then the same shall also be scored off. For a period of three months recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. After cancellation of the endorsement as aforesaid the amount deposited under interim order of this Court shall be returned without any interest.