SARAN DASS Vs. SITU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER:- This revision petition filed at the instance of the plaintiffs under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure calls in question the order dated 9-1-1980 recorded by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kangra, and arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioners who are the plaintiffs had filed their suit giving rise to this revision petition, for possession of some agricultural land. The petitioners produced a document which purports to be a deed of relinquishment of tenancy. rights and wanted to prove the same as a part of their evidence. This document was neither stamped nor registered. Since the document could not be admitted into evidence for want of stamp duty, the petitioners made a prayer to the trial Court that they be allowed to deposit the stamp duty chargeable on this document along with the prescribed penalty so that the document could be considered as duly stamped for the purposes of the Stamp Act. The learned trial Court, however, vide its impugned order declined this request of the petitioners. As a bare reading of the language of the impugned order would suggest, the learned trial Court declined the request of the petitioners on the solitary ground that the document being a deed of relinquishment of tenancy rights required compulsory registration under S.17 of the Registration Act and since it was not registered, no order need be passed either calling upon the petitioners to deposit the stamp duty chargeable on it along with penalty or for sending the document to the Collector for realising the requisite stamp duty and penalty.

(3.) I entertain no doubt that the approach of the learned trial Court in the matter is wholly erroneous and has resulted in its failure to exercise its lawful jurisdiction.