Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 886 (RAJ)

LAKHAN SINGH @ LAKHAN v. BADAN SINGH

2018-04-03

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Under challenge is the order dated 2.2.2018 whereby the trial court has allowed the respondents-plaintiffs' (hereafter 'the plaintiff') application for impounding of the agreement of the agreement to sell dated 11.9.1990 and remitting it to the Collector (Stamps), Bharatpur for determination of the appropriate stamp duty and penalty thereon. 2. Counsel for the petitioner-defendant (hereafter 'the defendant') Mr. Yogesh Singhal submitted that the agreement to sell dated 11.9.1990 of which impounding was sought by the plaintiffs is a forged document and in-fact in regard thereto a FIR having been filed, the plaintiffs have been challaned and cognizance taken against them under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It was submitted that in this view of the facts, the trial court ought not to have exercised its discretionary powers under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, impounded the agreement to sell dated 11.9.1990 and remitted it to the Collector (Stamps) for assessment of the duty and penalty payable thereon rendering the said agreement admissible in evidence - despite it being forged. 3. Heard counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order dated 2.2.2018. 4. The trial court in its impugned order has segregated the issue of payment of stamp duty on the agreement to sell dated 11.9.1990 from that of its authenticity. It has held that the agreement to sell dated 11.9.1990 for whatever its alleged infirmity as filed before it was under-stamped. The plaintiffs were seeking to have it impounded for assessment of the applicable rate of duty and penalty thereon. And in fact in law it was the trial court's duty to impound an under-stamped instrument as the matter related to revenue for the State. Yet the trial court was cautious to however hold that mere payment of due stamp duty on the agreement to sell dated 11.9.1990 would not operate an insurance against the defendant's case of its being forged and render its genuineness beyond doubt. But the issue of it being allegedly forged, as contended by the defendant, would be a subject matter of evidence in the course of trial and determined accordingly. 5. But the issue of it being allegedly forged, as contended by the defendant, would be a subject matter of evidence in the course of trial and determined accordingly. 5. I am of the considered view that the reasoning of the trial court in passing the impugned order dated 2.2.2018 impounding an under-stamped instrument is one aspect of the matter as it relates to payment of requisite revenue to the State Government in respect of instrument. The payment of duty assessed alongwith penalty, if any, by the Collector (Stamps) on the impounded instrument would have no relation whatsoever to the genuineness or otherwise of the instrument in issue. The trial court, therefore has rightly held that even subsequent to the instrument being adequately stamped after the assessment by the Collector (Stamps) following its impounding, it would be open for the defendant to set up all matter of defence with regard to its being forged and not being genuine. 6. In view of above, I find that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 7. There is no force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.