BUDHA RAM CHOWDHARY Vs. PUSHPA KHAJURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit filed by respondent for ejectment of the petitioner from the piece of land disputed in the suit, while the evidence of the defendant / petitioner was in progress, in the cross -examination of defendant the respondent wanted to introduce a rent deed executed on December 6, 1980. At the time when the said rent deed was tendered in evidence, it was found insufficiently stamped and was written on an impressed stamp of Rs, 5/ - instead of stamp paper of Rs, 11. 90 paisa which was the requisite stamp duty at the relevant time when the said deed was executed according to the schedule appended to the stamp Act, 1977 (1920 A. C. ) , (for short hereinafter called the Act). The document being under stamped was impounded by the learned trial court and before receiving it into evidence, the respondent/plaintiff was directed under section 35 of the Act to pay the deficient amount of Rs. 6. 90 paisa and Rs. 69/ - as ten times penalty on the deficient amount of stamp duty. The petitioner/defendant being aggrieved against the said order passed by learned Munsiff (Sub -Registrar), Jammu on October 9, 1986 has filed this revision.

(2.) BEFORE the learned trial court, the main contention of the petitioner was with respect to the rate of the duty and penalty imposed by the trial court on the ground that the stamp duty having been enhanced in the year 1982. the plaintiff/respondent should have been directed to pay the amount of deficient stamp duty at the rate prevalent on the date when the document is tendered in evidence, the penalty should also be imposed according to the current rates, hence the order is assailed. There is no dispute about the fact that the amendment of the Act was carried on in 1982 raising the rates of schedule of stamp duty on the rate, which was in force in the year 1980, when the document was executed. Learned trial court rejecting the contention of the petitioner held that the law, which was in force at the time of the execution of the document will apply and accordingly the schedule which was in force in 1980, i e., on December 6, 1980 when the document was executed will apply and, therefore, the direction to pay the deficient stamp duty and ten times penalty thereon. The duty and penalty so calculated was fixed at Rs. 75.90 paise. From the order passed on October 10, 1986, it is also found that the respondent/plaintiff has deposited the stamp duty of Rs. 76/ -including penalty in respect of the impounding of the deed, the court, therefore, allowed the said document to receive in evidence and directed the defendant to remain present on the next date for further cross -examination. The stamp duty and penalty so paid is further directed to be sent to the collector along with an authenticated copy of the document in respect of which it has been paid.

(3.) MR . D C. Raina in this revision raised the following questions of law and wanted the determination of the court. The points raised are enumerated as follows: -