RAM SUKH Vs. SOHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming for following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a bare perusal of Sec. 39 of Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 shows that no document can be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties to receive evidence unless such instrument/document is duly stamped however, there is a proviso to the Sec. 39 where certain exemptions have been laid down. He also submits that if the exemptions so provided in the Sec. 39 have been complied with then the patta in question could have been admitted in evidence and that the exemptions so provided in the Sec. 39 of the Act have not been fulfilled by the respondents and therefore, the patta in question could not have been admitted in evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court and Jaipur Bench in the cases of Ramesh Chandra and Ors. v. Addl. District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh and Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4696/2016 decided on 16/5/2016, Harilal Chowdhary v. Addl. District and Session Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and Anr. in Civil Writ Petition No.6737/2013 decided on 10/12/2014, Vedprakash Rathor and Anr. v. Munshiram Jattav and Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No.6307/2019 decided on 1/11/2019, Batti Lal Meena v. Manmohan Meena and Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No.8508/2008 decided on 1/4/2019.