NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. BAIJNATH SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the Court of Second Additional District Judge Gohad, District Bhind in Case No. 11 - A/2014 Niranjan Singh Kaurav v. Baijnath Singh, whereby the application filed by the defendants under the provisions of section 35 of the Stamps Act has been decided. Learned trial Court has directed that since the document in question, on the basis of which the plaintiff has filed the suit, comes within the definition of transfer-deed, therefore, it has to be stamped as per the provisions contained in Para 23 of Schedule 1- A of the Stamp Act, but since the document is unregistered, therefore, it was directed that the concerned party will be liable to pay the stamp duty as per the said Schedule and 10 times penalty.

(2.) Challenge to the said order is in regard to direction for payment of 10 times penalty and it is submitted that instead of adjudicating the quantum of penalty, the trial Court should have confiscated the document and should have referred to the Collector of Stamps for deciding the quantum of penalty. It is submitted that without adjudication, the trial Court was not entitled to impose 10 times penalty on the said documents.

(3.) In support of this contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the M.P. High Court in the cases of Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd., Indore v. Pankaj Agrawal, as reported in (2014)3 JLJ 200; Balkrishna Bihari Lal v. Board of Revenue, as reported in (1969)0 Supreme (MP) 77; Munni Sharma (Smt.) and others v. Mahendra Singh and others, as reported in 2010 (I) MPJR SN 9; Mansingh (deceased) through LRs. Smt. Sumranbai and othres v. Rameshwar and another, as reported in 2010(III) MPWN 101 and on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chilakpuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and another, as reported in 2001(2) Supreme 365.