BALVINDER SINGH SETHI Vs. INDRAJEET SINGH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dtd. 9/5/2024 passed by XXVI District Judge, Indore in COS No. 60-A/2015 whereby the application filed by the respondent under sec. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and sec. 17 of the Registration Act raising an objection that the document dtd. 27/1/2008 is insufficiently stamped and not registered, therefore the document be impounded and sent to the Collector of Stamps, has been allowed by the impugned order.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that he is owner of the property i.e. two shops situated at 63/12 (old NO.46) Nanda Nagar Main Road on the basis of family settlement held in the year 1984-85 along with application for injunction. The injunction was granted by the trial court. At the stage of evidence, the respondent/defendant filed an application under sec. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and sec. 17 of the Registration Act objecting that the document executed on 27/1/2008 is insufficiently stamped and was not registered, therefore the document be impounded and same be sent to the Collector of Stamps.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that the document on which the suit of the petitioner is based upon is not an "instrument of partition" as per definition of 'instrument of partition' under sec. 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act. It is only 'Memorandum of understanding (MOU)', and therefore, the same is not required to be registered under sec. 17 of the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of N.Khosla Vs. Rajlakshmi (dead) and others, (2006) 3 SCC 605 and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2011(3) MPLJ 91, Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Mahaveer Prasad Jain and others (W.P.No. 1750/2013), Guljarilal Jain Vs. Ravikant Shirke, 2010(1) MPLJ 580.