9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 2026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the year 1963, and is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Nagaur, since then. 4. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the matter required assistance of the learned Government Counsel, and therefore, on 15.04.2019, name of the newly empanelled Government Counsel, Shri K.K. Bissa was directed to be shown in the cause list, and on the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was ordered to be listed before this Court on 22.04.2019. 5. On 22.04.2019, the matter did not reach and was hence adjourned. But when brought to the knowledge of the Court and the learned counsel for the parties, a permission was sought and given for the matter to be listed on 13.05.2019, and thereafter, the learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed for final disposal of the writ petition, and accordingly, the matter was finally heard on 13.05.2019, and after conclusion of the hearing the order was reserved on that date. 6. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(i) the impugned order dated 30.01.2010 (Annexure-13) may kindly be quashed and set aside & the application filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Hon'ble Court, the learned Civil Judge, Nagaur vide order dated 04.12.1971 fixed the value of the property in question for the purpose of levying duty and imposing penalty. The said order was challenged by filing S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 86/1972, which was decided by this Hon'ble Court with the following directions on 18.07.1974: "Learned counsel are in agreement that such a valuation has not been disclosed in that document, and that the case fall to be governed by Section 27 of the Stamp Act. There is no provision in the Stamp Act empowering the Revenue to make an independent inquiry of the value of the property conveyed for determining the duty chargeable." 11. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge, Nagaur referring to the aforementioned decision dated 18.07.1974, again passed an order dated 22.11.1982 holding that as no duty and penalty can be determined by the Court, the document cannot be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose without it being registered or stamped. 12. The aforementioned order dated 22.11.1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaur in Civil Original Case No. 9/63 was challenged by the plaintiffs/respondents by filing S.B. Civil Revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate, which was prevalent at the time of execution of the said document, and not at the rate when it was produced before the Collector (Stamp), Nagaur -cum- Deputy Inspector General Stamp and Registration, Ajmer for the purpose of stamping. 16. As per the pleaded case of the defendants/petitioners, despite the specific direction of the learned trial court issued on 22.01.2007 for determining the value of the document for the purpose of stamp duty, the Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Collector (Stamp) Circle, Ajmer vide letter dated 08.10.2007 informed the Collector (Stamp), Nagaur that the valuation had already been determined vide judgment dated 07.09.2006, and thus, if the party had any grievance against it, an appeal can be preferred laying a challenge thereto. In view of the letter dated 08.10.2007, the office of the Additional Collector, Nagaur informed the learned trial court vide its letter dated 29.10.2007 that the petitioners would have a right of preferring an appeal, but no fresh adjudication of the stamp duty could be made under the provisions of law. 17. As the pleaded facts would further reveal, the defendants/petitioners upon coming to know about the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in evidence. The learned Civil Judge was in error in holding that the law in force at the time when the admissibility of the document is called in question will govern the case. Section 35 of the Stamp Act provides that : "No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped." The words "chargeable and duly stamped" used in this Section have been defined in the Act in Sections 2(6) and 2(11). 'Chargeable' means, as applied to an instrument executed or first executed after the commencement of this Act. 'Duly stamped' as applied to an instrument, means that the instrument bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such stamp has been affixed or used in accordance with the law for the time being in force in India. 7. It would thus be clear from the aforesaid definitions that the question whether an instrument is duly stamped must be determined with reference to the law in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich reads as under:- "23. Therefore, we are of the view that in the case of instrument of conveyance executed pursuant to the decree for specific performance passed by the Civil Court, in which there is no allegation of undervaluation or lack of bona fides, the mere fact that there is a time-gap between the agreement of sale and the execution of the document, is not sufficient to the Registering Officer to invoke his power under Section 47A of the Act, unless there are reasons to believe that there is an attempt on the part of the parties to the instrument to deliberately under-value the subject of transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty." 23. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Indra Devi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Thro' Inspector General Registrations & Stamps, Ajmer & Ors., reported in 2017(2) DNJ (Raj.) 869, relevant portion of which reads as under: "12. Now coming to the merit of the case, a bare look at the impugned order dated 09.08.2004, passed by the Collector (Stamps) reveals that he had simply determined the market value of the subject property, keeping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the order dated 17.08.1993 passed by this Hon'ble Court complied with by the petitioners clearly shows that their simple endeavour was to delay the adjudication, as the petitioners/defendants were enjoying the possession of the property in question and wanted to delay the final verdict. 26. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents vehemently submitted that with the efflux of time, all the rights of the defendants/petitioners in respect of the order of Collector (Stamp), Nagaur -cum- Deputy Inspector General Stamp and Registration, Ajmer to determine stamp duty payable as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court, have been defeated by their own conduct of not complying with the judgment dated 17.08.1993, uptill 14.05.2003. 27. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents also submitted that the delay of ten years in bringing such application for stamping the document in question itself was an act which required no indulgence in favour of the defendants/petitioners at any stage by any authority, as all their rights should have been declared to have been lapsed due to his inaction to call for the document to be sent to Collector (Stamp), Nagaur -cum- Deputy Inspector Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not on the date on which they have presented it for the necessary stamping. 33. In the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which have been invoked by the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to make certain observations peculiar to the facts of this case, where the suit itself is of the yaer 1963 and the document in question is dated 10.11.1951 and it pertains to one of the oldest civil suit pending in the State of Rajasthan. 34. 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. 35. This Court sees that the order dated 22.11.1982 passed by the learned trial court was set aside by this Hon'ble Court by the earlier judgment dated 17.08.1993. 36. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
