2009 (6) TMI 1011 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the document dated 12-04-2006.
2. Sending the document to a handwriting expert.
3. Sending the document to the Revenue Divisional Officer for stamp duty and penalty.
4. Rejection of the document as inadmissible.

Summary:

Issue 1: Admissibility of the Document
The core issue was whether the document dated 12-04-2006, styled as a Relinquishment Deed, was admissible in evidence. The petitioners argued that the document should be considered at the final disposal stage of the suit and not prejudged. They contended that the document, though unregistered, was crucial for their case. The respondents countered that the document was inadmissible due to non-registration and insufficient stamping, as it involved relinquishment of rights in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100, requiring registration u/s 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The court concluded that the document was inadmissible for want of registration and insufficient stamping.

Issue 2: Sending the Document to a Handwriting Expert
The petitioners sought to send the document to the Director of Forensic Science for comparison of disputed signatures. The respondents opposed this, arguing that since the document was inadmissible, sending it for signature comparison was unnecessary. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that sending an inadmissible document for handwriting analysis would be futile.

Issue 3: Sending the Document to the Revenue Divisional Officer
The petitioners also requested that the document be sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer for levying and collecting deficit stamp duty and penalty. The respondents argued that even if the stamp duty deficiency was cured, the document would still be inadmissible due to non-registration. The court upheld this view, noting that the document's inadmissibility could not be remedied merely by paying the stamp duty and penalty.

Issue 4: Rejection of the Document
The plaintiff filed an application u/s Order 13 Rules 3 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the document as inadmissible. The court, after examining the document and relevant legal precedents, allowed this application. It emphasized that it is the court's duty to reject any document deemed irrelevant or inadmissible at any stage of the suit.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions (C.R.Ps) filed by the petitioners, affirming the lower court's common order that the document dated 12-04-2006 was inadmissible in evidence due to non-registration and insufficient stamping. The court found no legal infirmity in the lower court's decision and thus dismissed the petitions at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.