Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2614 (RAJ)

Vijendra v. Mahendra Singh

2019-09-27

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The petitioner-defendant, in a suit for partition, perpetual injunction, declaration and eviction, is feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17th August, 2019 whereby, his application filed under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short "the Act of 1998") has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had moved an application before the Civil Court under Section 37 of the Act of 1998 whereby he had prayed that agreement to sale dated 4th January, 2016 was required to be impounded and the same was required to be sent to DIG Stamp, Sikar for paying proper stamp duty, on an unregistered and insufficient paid stamp, agreement to sale. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has rejected the application, without considering the entire facts and law on the subject. 4. Learned counsel submitted that plea of the defendant that the document was unregistered and not properly stamped was highlighted before the Court below and the document, which was sought to be relied upon by the respondents-plaintiffs, was not liable to be considered as a piece of evidence. 5. Learned counsel submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameer Minjaj Vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar, (2018) 7 SCC 639 has laid down the principle of law that the document, which is not registered but exhibited, shall not have any effect for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) AIR SC 1489 and Chilakuri Gangulappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and Anr, (2001) AIR SC 1321 . 7. On the strength of said judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the document, which is liable to be impounded, any party can ask for remitting the document to the authorities for proper stamp duty to be paid on such document. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court has consistently followed this principle and once the Court is informed about unregistered document, which is not property stamped also, it is open to the Court to impound the said document and send the case to the Collector (Stamp) under Section 37 of the Act of 1998. 9. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court has consistently followed this principle and once the Court is informed about unregistered document, which is not property stamped also, it is open to the Court to impound the said document and send the case to the Collector (Stamp) under Section 37 of the Act of 1998. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. 10. This Court finds that the Court below has fixed the matter for final hearing. This Court further finds that the application has been filed by the petitioner, after granting opportunity to lead evidence. This Court finds that the Court below has rightly given the reason for not accepting the application, as the petitioner-defendant wanted to delay the proceedings and as such, he filed such application. 11. This Court finds that the application, if at all, is required to be filed for impounding the document, the party, who comes into knowledge of such document, needs to file such application immediately. This Court cannot permit the practice of filing such application at the time of final disposal of the suit. 12. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.