Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAI SAHAB versus NORANG RAM & ANR.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAI SAHAB v NORANG RAM & ANR. - CW Case No. 4209 of 2004 [2004] RD-RJ 402 (7 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL WRITS No. 4209 of 2004

RAI SAHAB

V/S

NORANG RAM & ANR.

Mr. RAKESH ARORA, for the appellant / petitioner

Date of Order : 7.10.2004

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.

ORDER

-----

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order, the trial court has directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty along with penalty, obviously so as to render it to be admissible in evidence.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner firstly that, may be that document may not be sufficiently stamped, yet there is no law which prohibits the admissibility of document in evidence, simply because it is insufficiently stamped and, therefore, impugned order could not be passed. Suffice it to say that the argument is based on the ignorance of Sec.35 of the Stamp Act, which enacts the bar against admissibility of such insufficiently stamped document.

Next contention is that, by the document, the title in the property has not been conveyed, therefore, it does not fall within the meaning of "Conveyance", as defined by Sec.2(10) of the Act. Suffice it to say that a look at provision of Art. 23 of the Second Schedule shows, that in this article an amendment has been introduced, and thereby description of instrument has been provided, according to which, an agreement to sell an immovable property or an irrevocable power of attorney shall, in case of transfer of the possession of such property before, at the time of or after the execution of such agreement or power of attorney, be deemed to be a conveyance and the stamp duty thereon shall be chargeable accordingly.

In the present case, a look at copy of agreement, produced as

Annex.1, clearly shows that thereby possession of property was acknowledged to have been transferred.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

( N P GUPTA ),J. /Srawat/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.