SATYANARAYAN N GAUD Vs. RAMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 7-10-2006 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2006.

(2.) INITIALLY, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based upon the agreement of sale dated 30-11-1990, 24-4-1991 and 15-11-1991. Later on, the plaint was amended and the plaintiff is also claiming the relief of possession as according to him, he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. At the time of the evidence, the plaintiff wanted to rely upon the aforesaid 3 agreements of sale and wanted to introduce them as documentary evidence. An objection was taken by the other side with regard to the admissibility of the documents on the ground that they were insufficiently stamped. Considering the objection raised by the other side, learned trial Judge sustained the objection and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty holding that the agreement of sale was a conveyance and as such, covered by Art. 23 of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act as is applicable to the state of Madhya Pradesh. Learned trial judge also imposed penalty @ 10 times of the stamp duty payable on the instrument and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty along with the penalty by the next date of hearing or to declare that he does not want to exhibit those documents. Being aggrieved by this order, present writ petition has been filed, as mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the material available on the record, in the opinion of this Court, writ petition deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinbelow.