GH AHMAD Vs. GH QADIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order of the Sub -Registrar Munsiff Srinagar dated 13 -4 -66 whereby he has held a document dated 14th Baisakh 2008(B) to be admissible in evidence and has overruled the contention of the defendant -petitioner that the document was inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp and registration This document was presented along with the plaint. In para (7) the plaintiff made reference to this document. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the document was a forged one and was Inadmissible in evidence because it was not duly stamped or registered. Although a specific issue (issue 5) which is as under: Is the document dated 14th Baisakh 2008 a forged one and is the same inadmissible in evidence by reason of its not being stamped and registered?  was taken, the trial court by order dated 25th July 64 held the document to be a memorandum and therefore did not require registration or stamp duty. A revision was preferred against that order in the High Court and the case was sent back to the trial court by His Lordship the C.J. on 6th August 1965. Later on during the statement of one of the witnesses Mohd. Subhan Bhat an objection was again taken by the defendant that the document was inadmissible in evidence. The trial court by order under revision upheld the finding of its predecessor dated 25th July 1964 and held the document to be memorandum and not a partition deed and further held it to be admissible in evidence without stamp duty and registration. Against this order the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that this revision does not lie, as it is against an interlocutory order. He has drawn my attention to a reported ruling of this court, but I need not comment upon that authority, because in this very case formerly a revision petition was entertained the same point and no objection about the maintainability of revision was raised on behalf of the respondent. That is sufficient to reject the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. The matter which was then the subject matter of revision is exactly the same as in the present revision petition. Therefore two contradictory findings cannot be recorded occasions in the same case. Even otherwise the objection is without substance as revision applications on such points have been entertained by this court and other courts and decided. It would therefore be sheer waste of time to probe into this preliminary objection further.

(3.) NOW let us come to the merits of the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the decision of lower court is erroneous on the face of it. The document in question is a partition deed and it creates, extinguishing and limits the rights of the parties in immoveable property. Therefore it should have been stamped as well as registered.