Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2000 (RAJ)

Rajendra Singh Shekhawat v. Naveen Dadich

2018-09-28

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. -Under challenge is the order dated 30.8.2018 passed by the trial court holding the agreement to sell dated 1.3.2013, on the basis of which the suit for specific performance was laid by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') to be inadmissible in evidence both on the ground of it being unregistered and also understamped. 2. Mr. MM Ranjan, Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr. Rohan Agarwal submitted that the order under challenge before this Court is patently illegal insofar as it holds the agreement to sell dated 1.3.2013 inadmissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance as the trial court overlooked the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Mr. MM Ranjan fairly submitted that indeed the agreement to sell dated 1.3.2013 being on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- was under-stamped, but that lacuna is curable by filing an appropriate application before the trial court under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (Act of 1998) for impounding of the said agreement to sell and remitting it to the jurisdictional Collector (Stamps) for assessing stamp duty / interest / penalty payable thereon under the operating Act. Mr. Ranjan submitted that the plaintiff could not move the application for impounding of the agreement to sell dated 1.3.2013 and having it remitted to the jurisdictional Collector (Stamps) for assessment of stamp duty and payment thereof for the reason that the trial court by the order dated 30.8.2018 has kept out its admissibility for being unregistered. And until that part of the impugned order is quashed and set-aside, the plaintiff cannot beneficially resort to his remedy in law under the Act of 1998 on the aspect of agreement to sell being understamped. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. There is force in the contention of Mr. MM Ranjan on the issue of agreement to sell, in the instant case one dated 1.3.2013, being admissible despite being unregistered in the plaintiff's suit for specific performance for reason of the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. To that extent, the impugned order dated 30.8.2018 is indeed patently illegal and liable to be set-aside. It is so. 5. To that extent, the impugned order dated 30.8.2018 is indeed patently illegal and liable to be set-aside. It is so. 5. However in so far as the impugned order dated 30.8.2018 holding the agreement to sell dated 1.3.2013 as inadmissible for reasons of it being under-stamped is concerned, I am of the view that the reason for inadmissibility rightly found by the trial court is however rectifiable under proviso (a) (i) to Section Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. For this, Mr. MM Ranjan has sought permission of this Court to move an appropriate application before the trial court. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of as under: i) The impugned order dated 30.8.2018 passed by the trial court to the extent it held the agreement to sell dated 1.3.2013 inadmissible in evidence in the plaintiff's suit for specific performance for reason of it being unregistered being in the crosshair of proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 is quashed and set-aside. ii) The plaintiff shall be free to move an application before the trial court under proviso (a)(i) to Section 39 of the Act of 1998 for having the agreement to sell dated 1.3.2013 impounded and remitted to the Collector (Stamps) for assessment of the stamp duty payable thereon. iii) In the event of the stamp duty, as assessed by Collector (Stamps) being paid, the said agreement to sell dated 1.3.2013 be admitted in evidence by the trial court.