HEMANTA KUMARI PATNAIK Vs. SURYANARAYAN ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the document marked Ext. 1 in the suit is required to be stamped. The objection raised by the petitioners who are defendants in the suit against admissibility of the said document on the ground that it was not stamped having been overruled by the learned trial Judge they filed this revision petition assailing the order.

(2.) The opp. parties filed Title Suit No. 73 of 1975 against the petitioners praying to declare their right of passage over the suit land. In course of trial of the suit the plaintiffs-opp. parties produced the document in question which, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is a deed of settlement and wanted it to be marked as an exhibit. The petitioners objected to admission of the document on the ground that it was unstamped and unregistered and therefore could not be admitted in evidence. The learned Munsif overruled the objection by order dated 19-4-91 and marked the document as Ext. 1. He took the view that the document recorded a family settlement made previously and does not come within the purview of the definition of "settlement" under the Indian Stamp Act (for short, "the Act") and further that under the document no right or liability has been created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded.

(3.) . The answer to the question formulated earlier depends on interpretation of the provision in Section 2(24) of the Act which defines "settlement". The said provision reads as follows :