ASHABAI KRISHNA BADOLE Vs. DHANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/plaintiff, who had filed a suit for specific performance based upon the agreement dated 11-3-1995, being aggrieved by the order dated 2-9-2002 requiring him to pay the duty/ penalty on the agreement as required under art. 23 of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp act (as amended in its application to M. P.), is before this Court with a submission that the learned Court below has not appreciated the true import and effect of the agreement and unjustifiably required the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty.

(2.) THE agreement in dispute is available on the record at Annexure-A/1. In para-graph-5, the document refers that the properly proposed to be sold was in possession of the plaintiff on basis of some agreement relating to Aadhbattai, the executants of the document had received the amount of aadhbattai, it also records that the executants have already received the amount of future profit/aadhbattai. It also says that under the said agreement of aadhbattai, the plaintiff would be entitled to maintain possession up to 31 -3-1996 and would also be entitled to take crops of Kharif and Rabi and after execution of the sale deed and after receiving the balance amount of rs. 20. 000/-, the possession would be handed over to the plaintiff. In paragraph-7 last line, it is agreed between the parties that the balance amount of Rs. 20. 000/- would be paid by the plaintiff to the executants on or before 31-3-1996, the plaintiff would get the document executed and from the date of execution of the document/sale-deed, he would hold the possession as owner of the property.

(3.) WHEN the document was sought to be produced in evidence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 raised an objection that the document being a conveyance as defined under section 2 (10) of the Indian Stamp Act and as it was required to be on an appropriate stamps in accordance with Art. 23 of schedule I-A appended to the Indian Stamp Act (in its application to State of M. P.) without payment of duty and penalty, the document could not be admitted in evidence. The learned Court below conceded to the objection and directed the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty.