Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 180 (RAJ)

Rukma v. Phooma @ Choti

2023-01-16

SAMEER JAIN

body2023
ORDER 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.03.2017. The relevant portion of which is reproduced herein-below: 2. Services in the instant matter is complete. 3. Vide order dated 04.08.2017, interim protection was granted and further proceedings in the court below were directed to be stayed. 4. The principal plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and pari materia provisions of Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, any document which is inadequately stamped is required to be impounded for realization of appropriate stamp duty by the Collector Stamps. In this regard, the petitioner had filed one application on 18.02.2017 but the learned court below has exceeded its jurisdiction and has given finding on the fact that even if the document in question is stamped, still it is not mandatory on the part of the trial court to admit the same in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned court below is duty bound to abide by the provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and pari materia provision of Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and when the application in question was filed with the limited prayer for impounding of stamp duty, the learned trial court should have confined the findings and directions to the limited prayer made thereupon. 5. Considering the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and relying upon the provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and pari materia provisions of Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, it is noted by this Court that the learned trial court was duty bound to send inadequately stamped 'agreement to sale' document for impounding. The learned Trial Court should have refrained itself from passing any observation on the admissibility of the document upon the application with distinct and limited prayer. 6. In the opinion of this Court, there is a prima facie palpable error in the impugned order dated 27.03.2017. The said order, and the observation made therein, is set aside. The document in question, i.e. agreement dated 15.05.1992, be sent to the District Collector for impounding and the issue of admissibility is to be decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. 7. The said order, and the observation made therein, is set aside. The document in question, i.e. agreement dated 15.05.1992, be sent to the District Collector for impounding and the issue of admissibility is to be decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.