W.P No. 8433 of 2012 · Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S K SETH
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Indian Stamps Act s. 29
Judgment
Shri S.G. Polekar, counsel for the respondent. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 35- A/2010. Petitioners have filed a suit for eviction against respondent on various grounds. In support of claim made in the suit, petitioners have relied upon rent-notes, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure P/2 to p/5 to the writ petition. Respondent raised an objection regarding admissibility of the rent-notes in evidence on the ground that they were not sufficiently stamped. Contentions of petitioners before the trial Court was that in terms of the agreement, the stamp duty was payable by the respondent. 2 It was also contended that as per Section 29 of the Indian Stamps Act, the liability to pay the stamp duty is on the respondent. Petitioners' contentions were negatived by the trial Court in the impugned order. Hence, this petition. After hearing counsel for parties at length and going through the order impugned, we find no fault or illegality so as to justify interference under Article 227 of Constitution. Section 29 of Indian Stamps Act provides that cost of stamps on instrument mentioned in various clauses therein should be born by the party as stated in the clauses provided there is no agreement between them to the contrary. A bare perusal of Section 29 shows that it is not exhaustive as it omits many instruments. Clause (b) to (g) of Section 29 provide exceptions to the above general rule. It is well settled that in cases where the document does not provide for the liability to pay the stamp duty, than such stamp duty shall be born by the person who desires to get the instrument stamped. Section 29 is applicable only where the document is not 3 produced before the Court. Once the document is produced before the Court and tendered in evidence, the right of recovery of duty is regulated by Section 44 of the Act and not Section 29. Learned trial Judge was alive to the relevant provisions of law as is clear from the order impugned. Thus, we find no merit and substance in the writ petition. Same stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Alok/
( S.K. SETH, J. )
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.