PRAKASH CHANDRA Vs. HANIF MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter today has come up for orders on an application preferred by the appellant's counsel Mr. G.R. Goyal under Section 39 read with Section 42 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998.

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the present application are noted hereinbelow. The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 20.01.2006. The respondents being the alleged executants of the agreement appeared before the trial court and raised a pertinent objection made in the written statement regarding admissibility of the said document on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered and thus, could not be admitted in evidence. Despite the pertinent objection being taken, neither was any attempt to furnish the deficit stamp duty made by the appellant herein nor was any request made to the trial court for impounding the said document and charging the stamp duty. The trial court, framed a pertinent issue No.7 regarding this objection of the respondents. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit against the appellant by holding that the agreement was not admissible in evidence vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2011 in Civil Original Suit No.52/2006.

(3.) The appellant has preferred the instant first appeal being aggrieved of the judgment passed by the trial court, wherein, an objection is taken that the finding recorded by the trial court upon the issue No.7 is erroneous because the agreement had already been exhibited by the trial court and once the same had been exhibited without any objection, it cannot be held in the retrospective that it is not admissible in evidence. At ground No.(C) of the appeal, the appellant raised a pertinent objection that the trial court fell into grave error while holding that requisite stamp duty was payable on the document; that the same was not properly stamped and that if at all the trial court's view on this aspect is held to be correct, the case should be remanded back to the trial court for following the procedure laid down under Section 42 and 37 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. Also, regarding the requirement of getting the document registered, it has been pleaded at ground No.(D) of the appeal that as the possession had not been handed over to the purchaser, there was no requirement of getting the document registered.