Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 634 (MP)

Niranjan Singh v. Baijnath Singh

2017-05-05

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the Court of Second Additional District Judge Gohad, District Bhind in Case No.11-A/2014 Niranjan Singh Kaurav v. Baijnath Singh, whereby the application filed by the defendants under the provisions of section 35 of the Stamps Act has been decided. Learned trial Court has directed that since the document in question, on the basis of which the plaintiff has filed the suit, comes within the definition of transfer-deed, therefore, it has to be stamped as per the provisions contained in Para 23 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, but since the document is unregistered, therefore, it was directed that the concerned party will be liable to pay the stamp duty as per the said Schedule and 10 times penalty. 2. Challenge to the said order is in regard to direction for payment of 10 times penalty and it is submitted that instead of adjudicating the quantum of penalty, the trial Court should have confiscated the document and should have referred to the Collector of Stamps for deciding the quantum of penalty. It is submitted that without adjudication, the trial Court was not entitled to impose 10 times penalty on the said documents. 3. In support of this contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the M.P. High Court in the cases of Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd., Indore v. Pankaj Agrawal, as reported in (2014)3 JLJ 200 ; Balkrishna Bihari Lal v. Board of Revenue, as reported in (1969)0 Supreme (MP) 77; Munni Sharma (Smt.) and others v. Mahendra Singh and others, as reported in 2010 (I) MPJR SN 9; Mansingh (deceased) through LRs. Smt. Sumranbai and othres v. Rameshwar and another, as reported in 2010(III) MPWN 101 and on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chilakpuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and another, as reported in 2001(2) Supreme 365 . 4. In the case of Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd. (supra), it has been held that the trial Court has right to impound a document but at the same time it is obliged to send it to the Collector of Stamps for adjudication if such adjudication is demanded. 4. In the case of Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd. (supra), it has been held that the trial Court has right to impound a document but at the same time it is obliged to send it to the Collector of Stamps for adjudication if such adjudication is demanded. Similarly, in the case of Balkrishna Biharilal (supra), it has been held that an instrument can be sent to the Collector under section 38 (2) of the Stamp Act only when it is impounded under section 33, but it is not admitted in evidence on payment of penalty and/or duty with the aid of section 35. In that very case, it has been provided that how the Collector has to exercise discretion under section 40 of the Stamps Act of 1899. Similarly, in the case of Munni Sharma (supra), it has been held that the power of the Court in the matter of insufficiently stamped document is to impound the same and send it to Collector Stamps for determination of stamp duty and penalty. Same is the ratio in the case of Chilakpuri Gangulappa (supra), where it has been held that the Court has power to admit the document in evidence if the party producing the same would pay the stamp duty together with a penalty amounting to ten times the deficiency of the stamp duty. However, if a party refuses to pay the amount aforesaid, the Court has no other option except to impound the document and forward the same to the Collector. 5. However, if a party refuses to pay the amount aforesaid, the Court has no other option except to impound the document and forward the same to the Collector. 5. In view of such judgments of this High Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court and also a view taken by the M.P. High Court in the case of Satyanarayan N. Gaud v. Ramsingh (deceased by LRs.) and others, as reported in 2007(III) MPWN 11 = AIR 2007 MP 268 , wherein it has been held that the Court cannot directly ask plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty and impose penalty without leaving option of adjudication by Collector, Stamps, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside and it is directed that the trial Court after impounding the document in terms of the provisions contained in section 33 of the Stamp Act will at the option of the petitioner either send it to the Collector, Stamps for adjudication on the quantum of duty and penalty or take decision on its own. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.