SATISH KUMAR Vs. LALSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS objector's revision is directed against the order dated the 25th October, 1977 of the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class I, Bhopal, in M.J.C. No. 10 of 1977, arising out of the Execution Case No.181 -A of 1969 in the same Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the present revision are these. Non -applicant No.1 had obtained a decree for ejectment against non -applicant No.2 in respect of the suit premises in Civil Suit No. 181 -A of 1969. When this decree was put in for execution, the objector -application herein and non -applicant No.3 here in (hereinafter referred to as 'the objector's) intimated the executing Court that they were occupying the suit premises as tenants of non -applicant No.1 and would, therefore, obstruct the delivery of possession in execution of a warrant of possession against non -applicant No.2. In the course of inquiry under Order 21, rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the objectors sought to tender in evidence a carbon copy of the document dated 1 -2 -1977 in respect of their case. The nomenclature given to this document is 'rent -agreement and purports to have been signed by both the parties, that is, non -applicant No.1 and the objectors. The Court below found that the document for the purpose of Stamp Act is a lease and was, therefore, liable to stamp duty as a conveyance under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Act and on that basis, it held that the document was insufficiently stamped inasmuch as according to the objectors themselves the original was stamped with Rs. 5 only, and holding that the carbon copy, which was filed before the Court, was a primary evidence within the meaning of section 52 of the Evidence Act 33 it purported to have been executed by both the parties, ordered that it would be admitted in evidence under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act thereinafter referred to as 'the Act' subject to the payment of the deficit duty Rs. 1,080 and penalty Rs. 10,800. Being aggrieved by this order, this revision has been field by one of the objectors.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the decree -holder, reiterating the reasons given by the Court below supported the impugned order. 1 shall proceed to deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the objector ad seriatim.