Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 337 (MP)

SATYANARAYAN N. GAUD v. RAMSINGH

2007-03-22

S.K.SETH

body2007
( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 7-10-2006 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2006. ( 2 ) INITIALLY, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based upon the agreement of sale dated 30-11-1990, 24-4-1991 and 15-11-1991. Later on, the plaint was amended and the plaintiff is also claiming the relief of possession as according to him, he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. At the time of the evidence, the plaintiff wanted to rely upon the aforesaid 3 agreements of sale and wanted to introduce them as documentary evidence. An objection was taken by the other side with regard to the admissibility of the documents on the ground that they were insufficiently stamped. Considering the objection raised by the other side, learned trial Judge sustained the objection and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty holding that the agreement of sale was a conveyance and as such, covered by Art. 23 of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act as is applicable to the state of Madhya Pradesh. Learned trial judge also imposed penalty @ 10 times of the stamp duty payable on the instrument and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty along with the penalty by the next date of hearing or to declare that he does not want to exhibit those documents. Being aggrieved by this order, present writ petition has been filed, as mentioned hereinabove. ( 3 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the material available on the record, in the opinion of this Court, writ petition deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinbelow. ( 4 ) SECTION 33 of the Indian Stamp Act enjoins a duty to impound the instrument insufficiently stamped. After the document is impounded u/s. 35 of the Act, two courses are open to the Court. The first course is to admit the document in evidence subject to the exceptions upon payment of the duty chargeable thereon and penalty, if so tendered by the party producing the document. After the stamp duty and the penalty are so paid, the Court is required to send to the collector. The first course is to admit the document in evidence subject to the exceptions upon payment of the duty chargeable thereon and penalty, if so tendered by the party producing the document. After the stamp duty and the penalty are so paid, the Court is required to send to the collector. Stamps an authenticated copy of the document together with the certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and the penalty levied in respect of the instrument and also to send such amount to the collector Stamps as is provided by sub-section (1) of S. 35 of the Act. Second course open to the Court is when the party producing the document fails, to pay the duty and the penally, the Court must send the original document to the Collector Stamps who shall then take necessary steps for realising the stamp duty and the penalty. There is no other course open to the Court like keeping the unstamped document on the record without realising the stamp duty and the penalty. The jurisdiction to decide the question of the stamp duty conferred by proviso to S. 35 of the Act is only incidental to the reception of the document in evidence. If the party producing the document wants adjudication by the Collector Stamps, then the court must follow the procedure prescribed in Ss. 33 and 38 (2) of the Act and it is impermissible to impose such a decision on a party. The demand of the duty and the penalty by the Court u/s. 35 of the Act is only provisional liable to be altered by the procedure prescribed in other sections of the Act. If, instead of adopting the procedure prescribed in S. 35 and S. 38 of the Act, the judge passes an order directing the impounding and payment of penalty without passing any appropriate order under the proviso to S. 35 of the Act, the order is without jurisdiction. In the present case, from the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the Court below has imposed its decision on the plaintiff without leaving the option of adjudication by the Collector Stamps. The order impugned is, thus unsustainable in law and accordingly, it is hereby set aside. Learned trial Judge is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and refer the matter to the Collector Stamps for adjudication. The order impugned is, thus unsustainable in law and accordingly, it is hereby set aside. Learned trial Judge is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and refer the matter to the Collector Stamps for adjudication. The trial Court shall forward the necessary papers to the Collector Stamps along with the copy of this order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and shall also give a date for appearance of the parties before the Collector stamps. The Collector Stamps shall consider and decide the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of papers and the copy of the order from the Court below after affording opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. The trial Court after obtaining the decision of the Collector stamps shall thereafter proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. ( 5 ) IN the result, writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. C. C. as per rules. Petition allowed.