Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1273 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Sharma v. Paras Mal Jain

2015-07-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 35 and 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 ('the Act') has been rejected. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC for production of certain documents. The application was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to produce the family settlement and the rent-note. 3. When the documents were produced, the petitioner filed application under Section 35 and 39 of the Act, inter alia, with the averments that the documents produced were unregistered and insufficiently stamped and, therefore, the plaintiff be directed in terms of provisions of Section 35 and 39 of the Act. 4. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, it was, inter alia, claimed that the agreement for lease was for 11 months only and was executed on requisite stamp duty, qua the family settlement, it was submitted that the said document did not require any registration or payment of any stamp duty. Further, it was indicated that as the documents were produced on the application of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to question its admissibility and as the application has been filed only with a view to delay the proceedings, the same was liable to be dismissed. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties and noticing the submissions and the law cited by the parties, came to the following conclusion:- ^cgl ds izdk'k esa i=koyh dk iqu% voyksdu fd;k x;kA pwafd oknh ds }kjk izfroknh ds fo:) nkok ckcr fdjk;k dCtk dk fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa oknh dk ikfjikfjd le>kSrk fookfnr nLrkost ugha gSA izdj.k esa fdjk;k o dCts dk fookn gS] tgka dsoy fdjk;snkj o edku ekfyd dk laca/k ns[kuk gSA fdjk;s ds ifjlj ds LokfeRo ds laca/k esa izdj.k esa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA fookfnr ifjlj oknh ds iSr`d lEifr gSA vr% izkFkhZ@ifjoknh dk izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 35 o 39 jktLFkku LVkEi ,DV ,oa vkns'k 30-1-2015 dh ikyuk ckcr [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA* 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. The documents were insufficiently stamped and were liable to be impounded by the trial court and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference, the document on face of it is a family settlement, which does not require any registration/payment of stamp duty and no dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship has been raised by the petitioner and, therefore, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The application was filed by the petitioner seeking to allege that the documents produced required registration and were insufficiently stamped and prayed for consequential action on part of the trial court. The trial court after noticing the submissions of the parties has merely recorded its opinion that the document family settlement was not disputed document, the court was only required to see landlord-tenant relationship and there was no dispute pertaining to the ownership as the property was ancestral property of the plaintiff and has rejected the application. 10. It is apparent that the trial court instead of deciding the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the requirement of registration and insufficiency of the stamp duty has gone on to the status of the suit and as to whether the ownership/landlord-tenant relationship was disputed or not, which apparently is a clear misdirection. Once the objection was raised by the petitioner regarding the requirement of sufficiency of stamp duty on the documents produced by the respondents, it was the duty of the trial court under Section 35 of the Act to record a specific finding regarding the sufficiency of stamp duty, which the trial court has failed to do. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the trial court dated 29.05.2015 cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the trial court dated 29.05.2015 cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 35 and 39 of the Act after hearing both the parties on the next date keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore. Petition allowed.