Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2550 (RAJ)

Chetan Kumar v. Hamida Bai

2019-09-23

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order dated 08.05.2019, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salumber, District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), whereby a document, produced by the petitioner has been refused to be admitted in evidence, as it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered. 2. The facts appertain to the present purposes are that the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of possession inter alia alleging that the petitioner is her tenant and she wants to get her shop vacated. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the petitioner, before institution of the suit. 3. In the suit so filed by the plaintiff, the present petitioner filed a cross-suit and prayed for specific performance of a purported agreement to sell dated 11.10.2010. When the plaintiff was leading her evidence, the petitioner confronted her with the contentious document dated 11.10.2010, whereupon the plaintiff immediately lodged an objection that the document in question cannot be tendered in evidence, as it was neither sufficiently stamped nor was it duly registered. 4. Learned trial Court accepted the objection so raised by the plaintiff and held the document to be inadmissible in evidence, as it was not registered. The Court below further observed that even if, the petitioner is permitted to cover up the insufficiency of stamp duty and pay the penalty, the document would continue to be inadmissible in evidence, sans registration. 5. Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contentious document dated 11.10.2010 is not a sale deed but an agreement to sell; the petitioner was thus, well within his rights to maintain the suit for specific performance of the agreement in question. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401 and the judgment dated 02.09.2019 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Sahu Vs. Saulal (SLP (C) 34778/2016), which rule that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement, registration of the document is not required, as the same is saved by proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 7. Saulal (SLP (C) 34778/2016), which rule that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement, registration of the document is not required, as the same is saved by proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 7. With a view to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and to pronounce upon the question involved, particularly as to whether the contentious document dated 11.10.2010, is a sale deed or an agreement to sell, it would be apt to reproduce the same in its entirety, which is being done hereunder: ^^eSa gehnk ckbZ iRuh eksgEen gqlSu th vCck tkfr cksgjk] mez ckfyx fuoklh cksgjokMh lyqEcj vki Jh psru dqekj firk rstiky th tSu] mez ckfyx fuoklh mFkjnk gky fuokl lyqEcj ftyk mn;iqj ds i{k esa fy[k@fy[kok nsrh gwW &fd esjh nqdkus o tehu lyqEcj dLcs esa fLFkr gS muesa ls 2 nqdkusa vki Jh psru dqekj ds ikl fiNys 32 o"kksZls fdjk;s ij py jgh Fkh mDr nksuksa nqdkuks dh e; vkdk'k&ikrky ds dher 20]52]000@& v{kjs chl yk[k ckou gtkj :i;k r; dj dqy :i;k izkIr dj nksuksa nqdkus e; vkdk'k&ikrky ds csp nh gS] dCtk nksuksa nqdkuks dk vki psru dqekj ds ikl gh pyk vk jgk gSA vkt ls fdjk;k can gks x;k rFkk iwoZ esa fy[kh fdjk;k fpV~Bh Hkh jnn gks xbZ foØ; dh xbZ nksuksa nqdkuks ds iM+ksl] iwoZ&MkWŒ eksgu th iwfcZ;k dk edku] if'pe&Loa dh nqdkusa] mŸkj Lo;a dh tehu] nf{k.k&lyqEcj cl LVS.M ls pqaxh ukdk eq[; jkLrkA &fd mDr foØ; dh xbZ nqdkuksa o Nr ij vkus tkus ds fy, mŸkjh fn'kk esa esjh Hkwfe esa ls jkLrk jgsxk ;fn es iM+h Hkwfe ij fuekZ.k djokrh gwW rks 6 QhV dk jkLrk mŸkjh xyh rd NksMqxh RkFkk uky ds fy, tehu NksMqxhA & fd mDr fy[kk iMh eSusa vius iqjs gks'k gok'k eSa lksp le>dj fcuk fdlh ncko ds viuk Hkyk cqjk lkspdj le>dj :i;k iwjk izkIr dj fy[kk iM+h djokdj i<+dj i dj dj nh gS ftlls eS rFkk esjs okfjlku ifjokjtu ges'kk ck/; jgsaxs] mDr fy[kkiM+h Hkfo"; esa jkt esa] iapks esa dke vkosA lun jgsA^^ 8. A bare look of the document dated 11.10.2010, leaves no room for ambiguity that the same is a sale deed. There is sea difference between a concluded contract and an agreement. A simple look at the document, reproduced hereinbefore, shows that the entire transaction was concluded in the year 2010 itself. A bare look of the document dated 11.10.2010, leaves no room for ambiguity that the same is a sale deed. There is sea difference between a concluded contract and an agreement. A simple look at the document, reproduced hereinbefore, shows that the entire transaction was concluded in the year 2010 itself. The possession was already with the plaintiff-vendee and entire consideration qua the shop had been paid on 11.10.2010, thus, the transaction (sale) stood concluded. A perusal of the document also reveals that no performance was required to be made. There was no stipulation regarding execution of a formal sale deed and its registration by the vendor Hamida Bai. In the absence of any such stipulation and considering the fact that no act remained to be performed, the document in question cannot be treated to be an agreement to sell, performance whereof can be enforced. 9. The contentious document is indisputedly a concluded sale deed and since, it is neither registered nor stamped, proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 does not come into play. The sale deed in question, thus, cannot be let in the evidence, for want of registration, as mandated by Section 17 of the Act of 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 10. The judgment cited by learned counsel in the case of S. Kaladevi (surpa) and Prakash Sahu (supra) do not help the petitioner, as both are clearly distinguishable on facts of the present case, inasmuch as they held that for specific performance of an agreement, registration of the document is not required, as the same is saved by proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 whereas, in the present case, as already held, the document in question is not an agreement, but a concluded sale. 11. As an upshot of above discussions, this Court fully endorses the view expressed in the order dated 08.05.2019, passed by the learned trial Court. There is no infirmity or error in the order oppugned. 12. The writ petition, therefore, fails. 13. The stay application is also dismissed. 14. After completion of dictation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay applicable stamp duty and thus, the document be treated to be admissible for collateral purpose. 15. The petitioner may move an application for impounding and referring the document for determination of proper stamp duty. 13. The stay application is also dismissed. 14. After completion of dictation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay applicable stamp duty and thus, the document be treated to be admissible for collateral purpose. 15. The petitioner may move an application for impounding and referring the document for determination of proper stamp duty. In case such application is filed, the Court below will proceed in accordance with law. 16. In case, the petitioner pays appropriate/applicable stamp duty on the document, the document may be relied upon for collateral purposes, in accordance with law. 17. However, the same shall not be admissible in evidence for the petitioner's cross-suit, claiming it to be an agreement to sell.