KISHANLAL Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of M.P. No.6310/2022, and M.P. No.904/2023 as both the misc. petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have arisen out of the order dtd. 22/11/2022, passed in case No.RCSA/57/2020 by the First Civil Judge, Kannod, District Dewas (M.P.).

(2.) The misc. petition No.6310/2022 has been filed by the defendant, whereas, the misc. petition No.904/2023 has been filed by the plaintiffIn brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dtd. 14/06/2018, against the defendant, in which, the plaintiff's evidence is being recording and when the agreement dtd. 14/06/2018 was being exhibited in the trial Court, an objection was raised by the defendant that the same cannot be exhibited for the reason that it is neither properly stamped nor it is registered. The aforesaid objection of the defendant has been rejected by the learned Judge of the trial Court holding that the agreement is written on stamp papers of Rs.1,000.00 which is proper stamp duty. So far as the objection regarding registration of the document is concerned, it is held that since the agreement is being used for collateral purposes, its registration is not necessary.

(3.) Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant appearing in misc. petition No.6310/2022 has submitted that the Court has erred on both the counts for the reason that the agreement is liable to be stamped @1% of value of the agreement as per Schedule 1-A, Article 5(e)(ii) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which provides 1% stamp duty on an agreement to sale where the possession is not delivered, whereas regarding the compulsory registration of the document agreement to sale is concerned, counsel has relied upon the decision delivered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gordhan Vs. Dinesh and others reported in 2017(4) MPLJ 565 and Shanti Bai Vs. Ratna Bai reported in 2018(4) MPLJ 135. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside, and the objection raised by the defendant regarding the admissibility of the document be allowed.