Mohammed Abdul Nayeem v. Sri Rajendra Prasad Sanghi
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: RENUKA YARA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-03-18. Mohammed Abdul Nayeem v. Sri Rajendra Prasad Sanghi. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAYOF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA clvlL REVISION PETITION NO:4039 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order Dated: 02. 09. 2024 passed in l. A. No. 606 of 2023 in OS No. S1O of 2O14, on the fite of the Court of the Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge, at LB Nagar, Rangareddy District. Between: Mohammed Abdul Nayeem, S/o. Mohammed Abdul Raheem, aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 22$-1O1O,lrani Galli, Hyderabad ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND 1. Sri Rajendra Prasad Sanghi, S/o. Late Bajrang Prasad Sanghi, A,/a. 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 8-2-58311, Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 2. Smt. Shakuntala Bai, Wo. Satyanarayana, Na. 52 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o. H. No. 3-5-141 11 lN1, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. Respondent No. 2 is not necessary party to this petition ...
RESPONDENT'DEFENDANT l. A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 51O of 2014, pending on the file of Hon'ble Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge, at LB Nagar, Rangareddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Ali Farooq Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri. Shyam S Agrawal The Court made the following: ORDER INTHEIIIGIICOURTF0RTHESTATEoFTELANGAIIAAT HYDERABAD YARA RENUKA SMT. JUSTICE THE HONOURABLE l8'n DAY oF MARcH,2o26 I Between: Mohammed Abdul NaYeem' ... Petitioner AND Sanghi and another' Sri Rajendra Prasad ts ... ResPonden ORDER: HeardSriAliFarooq,learnedcounselforthepetitionerandSri No'l' Perused the entire for respondent Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel record. is preferred by the Revision petition 2.
This civil by the leamed aggrieved by the order passed petitioner/respondent/plaintiff (for short District at L. B. Nagar Judge, Ranga Reddy XI Additional District . theTrialCourt,),int. A. No. 606of2023ino. S. No. 510of2014,dated No'1 respondent wherein, a petition filed by O2. Og-2024, Rule 3 read with Section No. 2 under Order XIII herein/petitioner/defendant of stamped agreement the insufficiently to de-exhibit/demark 151 of CPC, of of delivery and receipt-cum-letter sale dated 22. 112006/Ex. Al has them from record' 19. 10. 2011/Ex. A3 and expunging v possession dated been allowed- \ I \ ) ) RY,J cRP 4039 2024 und of facts: 3. The brieffacts ofthe case are that respondent No. r herein fired suit in o's'No. 1568 of 2013 against the petitioner herein seeking perpetuar injunction with respect to property consisting of plot No. 14, forming part of Sy. Nos. 357 and 358 situated ar Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The extent of plot is g00 Sq. yds.
While so, the petitioner herein filed suit in o. S. No. 5r0 of 2014 seeking specific performanr:c of agreement of sale dated 22. 1 1. 2006 with respect to property consisting of plot No. l, admeasuring about 241 Sq. yds. , and plot Nos. 2, 3 and 4 total admeasuring about 339 Sq. yds. , both forming part of old plot No. 14 in Sy. Nos. 357 and 35g situated at Arrapu! " Village, Rajendra Nagar GHV. {C, Ranga Reddy District, and also sought perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the property. Both the suits are being tried together, with common evidence being led. \lhile leading common evidence, the petitioner had exhibited Exs'A-l to A"23'which incrudes rhe agreement of sale dated22. ,. 2006 as Ex'Al and the receipt-cum-letter of delivery of possession dated 19. 10. 2011 as Ex. A3. These documenrs were not properly stamped as per Article 6 (b) o:"Schedule l-A of the Indian Stamp Act, lg99 (. Stamp Act,).
As per Stamp Act, the agreement of sale of immovable property attract RY,J cw 4tJ39 2tJ'. 24 payment of stamp duty of SYo of the market value of the property. While so, the agreement of salelEx. Al was executed only on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper and the same is insufficient. Further, Ex. A3lreceipt-cum-letter of delivery of possession attracts stamp duty in terms of Article 47-A of Schedule l-A of the Stamp Act. Since there was deficit stamp duty paid on both the documents, said documents ought not to have been exhibited and ought not to be considered even for collateral purpose. Insufficiently stamped documents are inadrnissible in evidence. Since said documents ought not to have been exhibited, respondent No. l herein/defendant No. 2 filed petition under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC to de-exhibit said documents. 4. The petitioner herein tiled counter before the trial Court denying the averments of the petition referring to each paragraph.
However, the specific contention about insufficiency of stamp duty being the reason for de- exhibiting has not been addressed. 5. The learned trial Court considered the case of respondent No. 1 for de-exhibiting referring to Sections 35,36 and 61 of the Stamp Act and the judgment of this Court in the case of Venu Gopal Baldawa v. Reddy I Saritha rendered on 27. 04. 2023, wherein Reddy it is held that an unstamped or deficitly stamped document cannot be admitted into evidence \ MANU/TLI0704/2023 I l RY,J cRP 4039 2024 for any plrrpose including collateral pulpose. Further, it is observed that the petitioner herein could not come up with any evidence or reason to oppose the petition. It is held that even in case an insufficiently stamped document gets marked it can be de-exhibited. An unregistered document affecting immovabl: property is governed by the Registration Act, 1908 and the Transfer oiiProperty Act, 1882.
An un-registered document can be received in evidenco as a contract in a suit for specific performance. This exception is not applicable with respect to insufficiently starnped paper in terms of Section 35 ,of the Stamp Act and the bar is absolute. It is held that the view of Section 316 of the Stamp Act does not come in the way of de-exhibiting. Therefore, allowed the petition leading to filing of the present revision. Grounds of revision: 6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that Exs. A- I and A-3 were marked on 17. 09. 2019 in the presence of the counsel for respondent No. l and several adjoumments had been taken for the purpose of cross-examination. Thereafter, without proceeding for further cross-examination, respondent No. l came up with I. A. No. 130 of 2020 for impounding Exs. A- 1 and A-3 and saidpetition was dismissed on 21. 03. 2023 with a finding that respondent No.
l remained silent at the time of rnarking of the insufficiently stamped documents and therefore, said documents cannot be RY,J t:f;: cRP_4039 2024 per Section 36 It is held by the trial Court that as questione d at alater stage. cast upon the respondents to raise an objection of the Stamp Act, a duty is in proceedings to be when an insufficiently stamped document get tendered it is embargo under Section 36 of the Stamp Act' marked. In the light of Exs'A-l claim hetd that the respondents cannot that the documents under for want of stamp duty. Further, it is pleaded and A-3 cannot be admitted the judgment of this Court in cases of Venu that there is failing to consider India judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Gopal Baldava (supra) and Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra2' It is in the case of Avinash Kumar of 2020, the leamed trial Court submitted that having dismissed I. A. No. 130 settled principle Exs.
A-t and A-3 by ignoring went wrong in de-exhibiting questioning the of the Stamp Act, prohibiting of law about section 36 on the ground of insufficiency' of admission of an instrument in evidence There an in Section 61 of the Stamp AcL is stamp duty except as provided not come in of the Stamp Act does the effoneous conclusion that Section 36 way of de-exhibiting the documents. Further, reference is made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of tndia in the case of Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana3, wherein, the Apex Court clearly stated that once a document is admitted in evidence, no objection can be raised on the ground \ \ I 'RtR zoog SUPREME couRT 1489 ' tserlol supreme (SC) 21L , cRP of insufliciency of stamp duty. On the basis of aforementioned, pleaded ttrat the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Coptentions of the petitioner: 7.
The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Chand (supra), wherein once a document has been marked as an exhibit and the trial has on the footing that the document was an exhibit and it has been used parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses of the Act c;omes into operation. It is argued that once a document admitted in evidence, it is not open either to the trial Court or Appeal or Revision to go behind that order as Section 36 of rhe Stamp does not mention any exceptions. When there is a question of of a document on the ground of insufficient stamping, it has then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the admits the document, as far as the parties are concerned closed. A doc:ument has been marked as an exhibit and when the parties in cross-examination, Section 36 of the Stamp Act operation, and thus, the issue of admissibility cannot be revisited. RY,J cw 4039 2024 8.
Further, as per judgment in Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwala, Section 36 of the Stamp Act prohibits a Court from questioning the admission of an instrument in evidence on the ground of insufficient stamp duty, except as provided in Section 61 of the Stamp Act. Further, it is urged that if a party to the suit intends to produce an instrument which is insufficiently stamped to be admitted in evidence, the objection must be raised at the appropriate stage. The objection has to be specifically to the effect that the document is not duly stamped. Upon making of such an objection, the question is required to be determined judicially. 9. In the case of R. V. E. Venkatchala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P.
Temples, it is held that failure to raise a prompt and timely objection about admissibility of a documentary evidence amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. 10. In the case of T. A. Khaja Hussain v. C. Irshad Basha Nizami6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that with regard to Section 49 of the Stamp Act about the effect of non-registration of documents required to be \ registered, Section 36 of the Stamp Act about admission of instruments o 2006 0 Supreme (sc) 1oo7 t 2oo3 8 Supreme 193 ) t 2oo9 o ALD 497 \ ) \ RY,J cRP 4039 2024 which were not questioned when said instrument was admitted in evidence, Section 6l of the Stamp Act deals with revision of decisions of Court regarding sufficiency of stamps. ll. In the case of lsra Fatima v.
Bismillah BegumT, the Hon'ble Supreme oourt held that in a suit filed for perpetual injunction, when a petition is liled to be de-exhibit, document Ex. B-2 on the ground that it was not suff,rciently stamped, when there is failure to raise obiection at the time of marking of document, once the document is admitted in evidence, there can be no qrrestion of challenging the same subsequently. 12. Furthr:r, in the case of Varri Jayalakshmi v. Badiga Bswara Rao8, the High Cc'urt of Andhra Pradesh held that it is well settled principle of law that res iudicara applies at different stages of the same suit. Once a plea is not taken in a previous application and it is admitted by the petitioner, that such a plea though available was not taken, such a plea cannot be tak,:n in a second application. Contentions of respondent No. I: 13. Leamecl counsel for respondent No. 1 relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supre,ms Court in the case of Veena Hasmukh Jain v. State of '2oozs ALD 600 c. aTo.
no6 of 2024,dated 11. 11. 2024. RY,J cRP_4039 ]024 e to an Maharashtra it is held that the duty with respect , wherein of List No' 3 of agreement covered by the explanation under Entry No. 44 concurrent listed shows that duty is leviable as if it is a conveyance. The conditions to be fulfilled are that the agreement is to sell immovable property and delivery of possession of such an immovable property. When there is delivery of possession of property, the same is deemed to be conveyance. 14. Further, reference is made to judgment of this Court in the case of Venu Gopal Baldava (supra), wherein it is held as follows at paragraph Nos. 2 | and 22: "21. fn the present case, the trial Court received the documents along with chief affidavit of PW-l and marked the documents as Exs. A2 to Al3. However, supplementary deeds Exs-A2, A4, A6, A8, Al0 and Al2 require registration and receipts Exs. A3, A5, A7, A9, All and Al3 are subject to stamp duty.
The said exhibits which were tendered in evidence affrdavit of plaintiffs were deemed to be formally approved. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javer Chand's case (2 supra), the Court has to judiciously determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence before it is marked as an exhibit. ApparentlY, tfus record discloses that there is no judicial recognition with regard to admissibility of the documents Exs. A2 to Al3 which were tendered by the plaintiffs along with the affidavits in the form of chief examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that the documents Exs. A2 to A13 are admitted in evidence, merely because they are marked. 22. For the above reasons, I am of the view that Exs. A2 to Al3 were marked mechanically though there was no judicial determination of the admissibility of the said documents as required by law. " \ ' uaruu/sc/0039/19s9 ) \ ) RY,J cp. P 4039 2024 15. On the basis of aforementioned judgments, the learned counsel for respondent No.
l submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learnecl trial Court in de-exhibiting the documents Ex. A-l agreement of sale and Ex. A-3 letter-cum-receipt and delivery of possession. Findines of the Court: 16. The crux of the dispute is exhibiting of Ex. A-l agreement of sale dated 22. 1I . 2006 and Ex. A-3 receipt-cum-letter of delivery of possession dated 19. 10. 2011. The agreement of sale has been executed on a starnp paper of Rs. l00/-. Any agreement or contract where the subject matter is above vaiue of Rs. 2,00,000i- said agreement has to be executeci on a stamp paper of Rs. 200/-. To said extent it can be said that the Ex. A-t agreement of sale is executed on an insufficient stamp paper. When it comes to Ex. A- 3, letter of delivery of possession-cum-receipt dated 19. 10. 201l, it exhibits delivery of p<>ssession of immovable property.
For such a document, stamp duty has to b,e paid as it was existing in the year 2011, which would be a fixed atnount as per the G. O. in operation in the said year and not 5%o of market value rtf the property which is the current rate brought into force in the year 2021 by a G. O. Ms. No. S9 dated 20. 07. 2021 issued by the Revenue Department. V/hen these two documents were admitted in the presence of / I RY,J cRP 4039 2024 any the learned counsel for respondents before the trial Court without objection, then the bar under Section 36 of the Stamp Act comes into force, i. e. , an objection with respect to insufficiency of stamp duty cannot be raised at alater stage once the document is exhibited. 17. In the instant case, there is a specific plea in the counter filed by the petitioner in I. A. No. 606 of 2023 that the documents were exhibited in the presence of the counsel for respondent before the trial Court and therefore, no objection can be raised after its admission in evidence.
Respondent No. 1 herein has not given any reply or rejoinder to the contention of the petitioner that the Ex. A-l agreement of sale and Ex. A3 letter-cum-receipt have been exhibited in the presence of the counsel. 18. When the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No. t in the case of Venu Gopal Baldava (supra) is considered, it is seen that there is a specific finding about marking of the documents without application of mind, when admissibility is not decided. [t was found that Exs. A-2to A-13 were submitted along with the chief affidavit of P. W. l. The said documents were formatly approved. There was no recognition with respect to admissibility of Exs. A-2 to A-13. About their admissibility merely because said documents were tnarked, it is held that ta ) ) 11 R. Y,J cRP 4039 2024 there was no judicial determination about admissibility of the documents and therelbre, de-exhibiting of the documents was permitted. 19.
In the instant case, said analogy cannot be applied because respondent No. l had already filed I. A. No. l30 of 2020 to send the Exs. Al and A-3 f<rr impounding and said petition was dismissed vide order dated 21. 03. 2023. The very dismissal of the petition in I. A. No. 130 of 2020 clinchingly establishes that when the documents were produced for being marked in evidence and they were admitted, an interlocutory application was filed ftrr the purpose of ref'erring the documents for impounding. The learned trial Court considered the issue under Section 36 of the Stamp Act and disnnissr:d the sanle holding that once a dccurnent is admitted, the issue of admissibility on the ground of insufficient stamp duty cannot be countenance,C. Once the issue of insufficient stamp dufy as to Exs. AI and A-3 is consi,lered in t. A. No. l30 of 2020 and the same was dismissed, in case respondent No. l had any grievance, respondent No. l ought to have challenged said order. Once the order in I. A. No.
130 of 2020 dated 21. 03. 2023 br:came final. Respondent No. t had no locus to file the present petition under order XIII Rule 3 of CPC to de-exhibit the very same documents on the very same ground of insufficiency of stamp duty. On account of filing of I. A. No. l30 of 2020 and since the learned trial Court . r-. RY,J cl<P 4039 2024 f,ua ,t. "aay uppiiea nii judicial mind"to the issue of impoundirrg the i documents i. e. Exs. A-l and A-3, this Court is of the opinion that the facts i l of the present case are not similar to the facts in the case of Venu Gopal Baldava (supra). 20. [n view otthe foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court already considered the issue of admissibility on I account of insufficient stamp duty in t. A. No. l30 of 2020 and passed an t order on merits on 2[. 03. 2023. Since said order was not challenged, said order has becorne final. Once said order has become final, there is no ( ( occasion fior respondent No.
t to file the I. A. under revision to de-exhibit said documents on the ground of the same being executed on insufficient stamp paper. 21. [n view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that I t the learned trial Court had exercised its jurisdiction improperly, having t I I I made a decision in t. A. No. 130 of 2020 and revisiting the same in i I. A. No. 606 of 2023 (t. A. under revision). As such, the impugned order is liabte to be set aside 22- [n the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 02. 09. 2024 in I. A. No. 606 of 2023 in O. S. No. 510 of 2014 on the fite of the learned trial Court and consequently, the said I. A. No. 606 of i I I I I \ \ \ I '(-. } RY,J cn-p +org zo2+ Miscellaneous shatl be no order as to costs' 2023 is dismissed. There sha[[ stand closed' appticaticns, if any, pending SD'. A. JAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR I'TRUE COPY" SEGTION OFFICER To RangareddY l.
TheXlAdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudge,atLBNagar, District. With Records) [OPUCI O". C'Oio Sri: Ali Farooq, Advocate OneC,3toSri. ShyamSAgrawal,AdvocateIOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies PT/PSL L4 HIGH COURT DATED: 18/0312026 ORDER 1 H E SIa of 2024 CRP. No. 4039 . ) () 2 t Arfl ? 0? 6 G): 21 . Li, 5 /. ', t ,i' * rt{Tt-t,. '". ' CRP THE ALLOWING b b
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.