SUDHIR BHARGAVA Vs. SAROJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no. 1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 02.08.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court. Respondent no. 1-plaintiff has filed suit against petitioner and proforma respondent no. 2 as defendants, for joint possession of the suit property, by specific performance of agreement to sell. The defendants alleged that the impugned agreement cannot be exhibited in evidence being not properly stamped. The trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-4), has over-ruled the aforesaid objection of the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1 has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that according to the agreement, possession of the suit property was allegedly delivered to the plaintiff, and therefore, the agreement required compulsory registration and stamp duty as a conveyance deed. The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court, in an unreported case, bearing R.S.A. No. 4946 of 2011 titled Ram Kishan and another vs. Bijender Mann alias Vijender Mann and others-decided on 12.10.2012 that suit for specific performance is maintainable even on unregistered agreement, whereby possession of the property is delivered to the plaintiff. The agreement is also not conveyance deed or sale deed requiring stamp duty as such. It may be added that the defendants, in the written statement, have admitted the execution of the agreement and have also pleaded that possession of the suit property was not delivered to the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff in the suit has claimed relief of joint possession of the suit property. Thus, even possession of the suit property appears to have been not delivered to the plaintiff. Thus, examined from any angle, the objection raised by the defendants regarding stamp duty and registration of the agreement is completely unsustainable and has been rightly over-ruled by the trial court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Nothing in this order shall have any bearing on merits of the suit.