Allowed

Manisha Sethi W/O Shri Gurmeet Sethi v. Rajesh Natani S/O Shri Satyanarayan Natani

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2022CW/16096/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's order rejecting a petitioner's application regarding an unstamped rent deed. The Court held the lower court erred in characterizing the document and failed to invoke powers to ensure proper stamp duty payment or refer the matter to the Stamp Collector. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.05.2019 setting aside the petitioner's application was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to apply in accordance with law for payment of stamp duty or remittance to the Coll

Manisha Sethi W/O Shri Gurmeet Sethi Vs Rajesh Natani… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16096/2019

¶3

Manisha Sethi W/o Shri Gurmeet Sethi, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Nekchal Road, Deoli, Business Gurmeet Dental Clinic, Near Sabji Mandi, Deoli, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajesh Natani S/o Shri Satyanarayan Natani, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Sabji Mandi, Deoli, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan)

¶7

Sanjay Natani S/o Shri Satyanarayan Natani, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sabji Mandi, Deoli, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan) Presently R/o M-113, Gordhan Apartment, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rahul Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Dinesh Chand Gupta, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/09/2022

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-nonapplicant challenging the order dated 30.05.2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 has been rejected.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the eviction proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioner that a document-rent deed filed by the respondentsplaintiffs, said to be entered into between the respondentdefendant-Manisha Sethi and one Smt.Rameshwari Devi, was not

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-16096/2019]

¶17

liable to be admitted in evidence, as the same was not properly stamped.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 was also filed alleging that so called rent deed was a fabricated document and as such there was a requirement of expert opinion by way of FSL to prove the forged nature of document.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the document-rent deed filed by the respondents was an agreement simplicitor and not a rent deed.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that the Court below was required to consider the payment of requisite and sufficient stamp on the rent deed, said to be prepared between the respondent and one Rameshwari Devi.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the Court below could not have considered the nature of document in wrong way by not asking the respondent to pay the stamp duty.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15760/2015 (Sanjeev Bhardwaj Vs. Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar) and other connected writ petition decided on 04.09.2019, has considered the issue of production of unstamped document, as per Section 35(1) of the Stamps Act and if a document is not properly stamped, the same is required to be impounded by the Court and if the sufficient stamp duty is not paid before the Court itself then the Court can send it to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty and penalty.

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-16096/2019]

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the document in question has already been admitted in evidence and the plaintiffs-applicants have completed their evidence and as such this Court may not interfere in the order passed by the Court below.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3060/2015 (M/s Gaumata Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Shri Mahesh Chand Bansal) dated 27.06.2022.

¶27

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶28

This Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that if any document was produced before the Court below and the same was said to be a rent deed, the Court below could not have treated the said document as a simple agreement.

¶29

This Court further finds that the Court below has also not taken into account the fact of document not being properly stamped. The Court below either should have asked the respondents to pay proper stamp/Court fee and if the same was not paid then the matter should have been referred to the Collector (Stamps) for payment of sufficient stamp duty and penalty if any.

¶30

This Court finds that the Division Bench in the case of Sanjeev Bhardwaj Vs. Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar (supra) has already dealt with this issue and has amplified the powers given to the Courts to deal with the documents, which are not properly stamped.

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CW-16096/2019]

¶33

This Court also finds that in the case of M/s Gaumata Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Shri Mahesh Chand Bansal (supra), this Court has issued a direction to the Court concerned to ask the parties to pay the proper stamp and if the same is not paid, then after impounding the documents, the Court still has power to send the matter to the Collector (Stamps) for payment of requisite stamp duty.

¶34

This Court is informed that the document has already been exhibited during evidence of the plaintiff, however, the Court below can still ask the respondents to pay the proper stamp fee and if the same is not paid by them, the Court is well within its jurisdiction to send the matter to the Collector (Stamps) for determining the requisite fee of Stamp, considering worth of the document.

¶35

This Court accordingly sets aside the order dated 30.05.2019 and directs the Court below to decide the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and as per observations made by this Court.

¶36

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed, in above terms.

¶37

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶38

Monika/17

Manisha Sethi W/O Shri Gurmeet Sethi v. Rajesh Natani S/O Shri Satyanarayan Natani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Sethi W/O Shri Gurmeet Sethi v. Rajesh Natani S/O Shri Satyanarayan Natani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Agra Alu Company Vs State Agriculture Dep Ors.

Ashwini Kumar Sakerwal S/O Dr. J.K. Sakerwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh W/O Shri Pradeep Singh Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Smt Savitri Devi Wife of Shri Yogendra Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sunrita Sharma W/O Shri Dharmesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Sharma Vs Registrar Coop Soci and Anr.