Both Lal v. Nand Lal Judgment dt & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Registration Act, 1908 s. 17(1)(b)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 s. 59
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Having heard learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court whereby the learned trial court held that the only CW-4799/08-Both Lal Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Judgment dt.28.10.09 document…
- Para 77. Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. item No.17 babulal/ [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.
Judgment
Mr. G.R. Bhari for Mr. Sanjay Mathur for the petitioner. Mr. Gajendra Mehta for the respondents. -------
This writ petition is directed against the order dated
6.10.2007 passed by the learned trial Court in which the application filed by the defendants that the document dated 11.5.1992 is mortgage deed which is neither stamped nor registered and, therefore, is inadmissible in evidence was allowed by the learned trial court and the said document was held to be inadmissible in evidence.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner drew the attention of the Court towards the document in question which is Annex.3 on record. The said document purported to have been executed by the defendant Nand Lal clearly stipulates that the plaintiff Both Lal had mortgaged the 3 shops in question with the defendant Nand Lal for Rs.7,000/- and for which a document is sought to have been executed on stamp No.7976 of Rs.5/- on
13.11.1991 and the term and conditions of the said documents were also acceptable to the defendant. CW-4799/08-Both Lal Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Judgment dt.28.10.09
The defendant in his application which has been decided by the impugned order by the learned trial court denied any such execution of the document dated 13.11.1991 and submitted before the learned trial court that the suit is based on the said document dated
11.5.1992 itself which is Annex.3 on record.
The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submitted that the document in question dated 11.5.1992 is the only mortgage deed and which being unstamped and unregistered cannot be admitted in evidence and, therefore, the learned trial court has not erred in allowing the said application of the defendant in present case by the impugned order dated 6.10.2007. He drew the attention of the Court towards the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff on the other hand submitted that the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to remove the deficiency of stamp duty of the said document can be referred to the Collector (Stamps) for assessment of stamp duty in question.
Having heard learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court whereby the learned trial court held that the only CW-4799/08-Both Lal Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Judgment dt.28.10.09 document on the basis of which present suit for redemption of mortgage has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner is the document dated 11.5.1992 and construing that to be a mortgage deed, the learned trial court has rightly held that the same being unstamped and unregistered, cannot be admitted in evidence. Therefore, this court finds no error of law in the said order.
Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. item No.17 babulal/ [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Registration Act, 1908 — s. 17(1)(b); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s. 59.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 28 Oct 2009. The bench was VINEET KOTHARI.
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.