RAKESH KUMAR SUNDRANI Vs. JAGDISH PRAKASH ANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by defendants is directed against the order dated 27.01.2016 dismissing the application filed under Sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act read with Sec. 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are real brothers, sons of Chandraprakash Angal, who passed away on 28.5.1987. A suit for declaration and injunction is pending consideration inter alia contending that properties described in the plaint, in fact, have already been partitioned by way of family arrangement. All brothers/members of the family are in possession of their respective part of joint family property and enjoying the same. In order to acknowledge the partition arrived at amongst the parties, a document was written on 15.2.1992. The dispute, however, arose with the plea that the properties fallen to the share of plaintiffs have been transferred by defendant No.1 to defendants No.2 and 5 and the same being contrary to the settlement and the instant suit for declaration and injunction has been filed. During pendency of the suit, defendants filed an application questioning the admissibility of the document dated 15.2.1992 (Ex.P/3) for want of sufficient stamp duty and registration showing the document as partition in view of Sec. 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, respectively. Plaintiffs filed reply inter alia contending that the document (Ex.P/3) is the acknowledgement of settlement arrived at amongst the brothers of the family on 15.2.1992, so it is not a partition deed. Hence, no exception thereto can be taken that it is not admissible for the reason of insufficiently stamped or not registered. It is also contended that the application has been filed after 12 years of filing of the suit, as such it is formidably delayed. Moreover, similar application has already been decided in the past. Plaintiffs' evidence has been closed about one and half years ago and the question of admissibility of document has been decided earlier. The same is already marked as exhibit. The document (Ex.P/3) being acknowledgement of partition only as evidence, therefore, it is properly stamped and hence, the application deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Trial court has observed that as a matter of fact the document has already been exhibited in evidence and marked as Ex.P/3 on 14.7.2014 during the course of examination of plaintiff's witness Jagdish Prasad Angal and no such objection thereto was taken at that time. The document dated 15.2.1992 is only an acknowledgment of oral partition pursuant to family arrangement amongst the brothers of the family and consequently, dismissed the application.