LAXMINARAYAN SURAJMAL PORWAL Vs. OMPRAKASH GULABDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS are the petitioners before this Court are aggrieved against an order dated October 22, 2007 passed by the learned trial judge, whereby it has been held that the document in question (agreement)having recited that possession of the property in question had been delivered to the plaintiffs, the same was insufficiently stamped as per Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) I have heard Shri B. I. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners and shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondents and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case.

(3.) ALTHOUGH there is no dispute with regard to the fact that in the document in question, which is an agreement alleged to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs, and which is basis of the suit, it is recited that possession of the property in question had been delivered to the plaintiffs, but the fact cannot be ignored that a specific plea has been raised by the defendants in their written statement denying the execution of the said agreement and also specifically denying that the possession of the property had ever been delivered to the plaintiff/petitioners. In these circumstances, once, the defendants themselves have claimed that possession of the property had not been delivered, then the recital in agreement loses all significance. In such a situation, the document cannot be held to be insufficiently stamped merely because it was not stamped in accordance with Article 23 of Stamp Act.