HATESINGH MUNNALAL Vs. KISHAN SALIGRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-non-applicants instituted a suit against the applicant on the allegations that on 17-5-1964 accounts were settled between them and the defendant; that an amount of Rs. 7237/- was found due from the plaintiffs to the defendant; that for the payment of this amount the plaintiffs had mortgaged with possession suit lands with the defendant as Per document of that date; that the aforesaid land was mortgaged with possession with the defendant for a period of 8 years as a mode of repayment of the aforesaid amount; that this transaction was against the provisions of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and that in spite of the defendant being called upon to restore the possession of the suit lands, the defendant has not done so.

(2.) THE defendant in his written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and alleged that the relations of a landlord and tenant subsists between the plaintiffs and himself; that the suit lands were leased to him for a period of 8 years; that the document relied upon by the plaintiffs is neither stamped nor registered and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief.

(3.) AFTER issues were raised, evidence was recorded. During the examination of the plaintiffs witnesses an unstamped and unregistered document dated 17-5-1964 was sought to be tendered in evidence. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendant (sic) that this document was either an instrument of lease or an instrument of mortgage and that because of being not stamped and registered it was not admissible in evidence. The learned trial Judge by his impugned order dated 15-9-1970 held that the disputed document was required to be stamped either as an instrument of lease or as an instrument of mortgage. Accordingly without giving any decision as to the nature of the document it was found that it was liable to duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 2062-50 payable by the defendant. It is against this order that the present application has been filed.