2019 (5) TMI 2026 - HC - Indian Laws

Admissibility in evidence of partition deed which was unregistered and unstamped - assessment of stamp duty based on the value of the property at the time of its execution in 1951 or at the time of its presentation for stamping in 2003 - HELD THAT - This Court is quite concerned about the civil proceedings pending since 1963. The precedent law is quite clear that the defendants/petitioners were required to pay the stamp duty in respect of the document in question before the Collector (Stamp) Nagaur -cum- Deputy Inspector General Stamp and Registration Ajmer which had to be calculated on the basis of the rates prevalent at the time of execution of the document in question - It is a sad story that inspite of this Hon ble Court recording in the year 1993 that the case is having a chequered history due to its long pendency since 1963 the matter is still alive without completion of the adjudication process. However this Court is tied down to the precedent laws and the judgment already rendered by this Hon ble Court. This Court finds that the defendants/petitioners have abused the process of law by not acting upon the judgment dated 17.08.1993 until 14.05.2003. This Court considers that the petitioners endeavour to get the document dated 10.11.1951 stamped in pursuance of the aforementioned judgment dated 17.08.1993 passed by this Hon ble Court which was originally against them as the learned Civil Judge Nagaur on 22.11.1982 had declined the admission of the document in question and the defendants/petitioners had contested it tooth and nail before this Court from 22.11.1982 to the year 1992. Thus inspite of the frustrating delays caused by the defendants/petitioners this Court to avoid any further delay and for ensuring continuance of the proceedings pending before the learned trial court allows the present writ petition while quashing the impugned orders dated 30.01.2010 and 07.09.2006 as well as the letters dated 08.10.2007 and 29.10.2007. Accordingly the respondent No. 7-Deputy Inspector General Registration-cum-Collector (Stamp) Circle Ajmer is directed to determine the stamp duty in respect of the partition deed dated 10.11.1951 in question as per the directions given by this Hon ble Court earlier in the aforementioned judgment dated 17.08.1993 and while taking the valuation from the date of execution of the partition deed i.e. 10.11.1951 the order upon the necessary stamp duty shall be passed by respondent No. 7 within a period of 30 days from today. The learned trial court shall thereafter proceed expeditiously to decide the suit pending before it within a period of two months thereafter. Conclusion - i) The partition deed dated 10.11.1951 was inadmissible in evidence unless duly stamped. ii) The stamp duty must be assessed based on the property s value at the time of the document s execution in 1951 not at the time of its presentation for stamping. Petition allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in this judgment were:

1. Whether the partition deed dated 10.11.1951, which was unregistered and unstamped, could be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes, and if so, under what conditions.

2. Whether the stamp duty for the partition deed should be assessed based on the value of the property at the time of its execution in 1951 or at the time of its presentation for stamping in 2003.

3. Whether the actions and delays by the defendants/petitioners in complying with previous court orders regarding the stamping of the partition deed constituted an abuse of the legal process.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Admissibility of the Partition Deed:

The legal framework surrounding the admissibility of unregistered and unstamped documents was central to this issue. The court referenced previous rulings, including a 1966 decision, which established that an unregistered document could be used to prove the factum of partition but not to determine the properties partitioned. However, it required the payment of requisite duty and penalty. The court upheld the principle that the document was inadmissible unless properly stamped, reinforcing the need for compliance with the Stamp Act.

2. Determination of Stamp Duty:

The court considered the legal precedents, notably the Full Bench decision in Nanga Vs. Dhannalal, which clarified that the stamp duty should be based on the law in force at the time of execution of the document. This was supported by other judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, emphasizing the valuation at the time of execution rather than at the time of presentation for stamping. The court found that the defendants/petitioners were entitled to have the stamp duty assessed based on the 1951 valuation, aligning with the established legal principles.

3. Abuse of Legal Process:

The court scrutinized the defendants/petitioners' conduct, noting the significant delay in acting on the 1993 court order to have the document stamped. The court expressed concern over the protracted litigation, which had been pending since 1963, and highlighted the defendants/petitioners' failure to comply with the court's directives as a misuse of the legal process. This was seen as a tactic to delay the adjudication while benefiting from the possession of the property in question.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The court made several crucial determinations:

- The partition deed dated 10.11.1951 was inadmissible in evidence unless duly stamped, consistent with the 1993 judgment.

- The stamp duty must be assessed based on the property's value at the time of the document's execution in 1951, not at the time of its presentation for stamping.

- The defendants/petitioners' delay in complying with the court's order was deemed an abuse of the legal process, aimed at frustrating the ends of justice.

The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and directing the Deputy Inspector General, Registration-cum-Collector (Stamp), Ajmer, to determine the stamp duty based on the 1951 valuation within 30 days. The trial court was instructed to expedite the proceedings and decide the suit within two months, with costs imposed for unnecessary adjournments. The court opted not to refer the matter to appeal to avoid further delays in a case already pending for over 56 years.