Dismissed

Smt. Lichhu Devi v. Champalal

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2024CW/13944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing pettioner to stamp an agreement. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the unstamped document was inadmissible and maintaining that stamp duty non-compliance affects admissibility, not court fee issues.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order directing impounding of unstamped document upheld.

Smt. Lichhu Devi Vs Champalal — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:35677]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13944/2024

¶4

Smt. Lichhu Devi W/o Shri Achlaram, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Village Chawanda, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Champalal S/o Shri Hanuman Singh, Resident Of Village Chawanda, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶8

Jagsingh S/o Bheru Singh, Resident Of Village - Jhabra, Tehsil - Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.

¶9

Nimb Singh @ Nem Singh S/o Bheru Singh, Resident Of Village - Jhabra, Tehsil - Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.

¶10

Smt. Jethi Devi W/o Bheru Singh, Resident Of Village - Jhabra, Tehsil - Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.

¶11

Madhuram S/o Gopalram, Resident Of Village Chawanda, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh

¶14

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶15

Order

¶16

29/08/2024

¶17

The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.102/2023 (14635/2014) whereby the application under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as preferred on behalf of defendant No.4 Madhuram, has been partly allowed.

¶18

Vide order impugned dated 25.07.2024, the learned Trial Court rejected the objection qua the registration of the agreement

[2024:RJ-JD:35677]

[CW-13944/2024]

(2 of 3)

in question as raised by defendant No.4 but upheld the objection pertaining to the document being unstamped. The Court, while holding that the document being unstamped and inadmissible in evidence, directed for impounding the same and to be filed after the same being stamped.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner defendant No.5 submits that the said order could not have been passed as neither was the said prayer made by defendant No.4 nor was it prayed by the plaintiff himself. Therefore, the Court could not have ordered for impounding of the document as the same has ultimately resulted into the decision of issue No.5 itself, which pertains to insufficient Court fee.

¶24

Heard the counsel and perused the order impugned as well as the material available on record.

¶25

This Court is of the clear opinion that the order dated 25.07.2024 is totally in consonance with the provisions of law. The Court rightly held the document to be inadmissible in evidence because of being insufficiently stamped. The necessary corollary because of the said finding was to impound the document, which the learned Court did.

¶26

So far as issue No.5 is concerned, evidently, the same pertains to deficiency of Court fee and has nothing to do with the deficiency of stamp duty. The impounding of the document or the direction to get the document sufficiently stamped, cannot, in any manner, affect the issue of Court fee. The ground as raised by counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be tenable. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the order impugned and the writ petition is hence, dismissed .

[2024:RJ-JD:35677]

[CW-13944/2024]

(3 of 3)

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand

¶31

disposed of .

¶32

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶33

10-KashishS/-

Smt. Lichhu Devi v. Champalal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lichhu Devi v. Champalal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Varhat Vs State of Rajasthan

Amjad Hussain Vs Harish Kumar

Sabniya Jal Grahan Vikas Sansthan Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Karuna Lohiya Vs Ramjas Dangra

Noor Mohammad Vs Abdul Mayum

M/S Nagneshi Cotton Mills Vs Balotra Water Pollution Control