NAWAL KISHORE TULARA v. DINESH CHAND GUPTA AND ORS

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1186

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL, BRIJESH KUMAR

Judgment text

NAWAL KISHORE TULARA v. DINESH CHAND GUPTA AND ORS. JULY 25, 2001 [S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. _K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ. ] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115-Revisiona/ Jurisdiction-Power and scope ofHigh Court- Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and ownershit:r-Defendant pleaded that plaintiff entered into agreement with him to sell the suit property-Plaintiff objected to the document for want ojregiStration and sufficient stamp duty-- Trial court allowed ·the objection-However, High Court considered the document on its merits and held it not to be a valid agreement and dismissed · the revision-Correctness of-Held: High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in entering into the question of validity of the document on merits-Hence, matter remitted for decision afresh. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership, and also for possession, of the suit property.

The appellant-defendant contended that the respondent-plaintiff had entered into an agreement with him to sell the suit property But the respondent-plaintiff objected to "exhibit" the said document as it was unregistered and also insufficiently stamped. The trial court allowed the objection arid held that the said document was not admissible in evidence. The High Court, in revision, held that the reasons given by the trial court for not exhibiting the document could not be sustained. However;the High Court considered the document on its merits leaving aside the question of its admissibility and held that the document was not a valid agreement under the relevant provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 and dismissed the revision. Hence this appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The question for consideration before the revisional court was confined to the admissibility of the document on the grounds raised by the plaintiff.

The revisional court, after holding that the reasons given by the ( trial court, for not exhibiting the document, could not be sustained, exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the question of validity of the document on "' . 31. l0. 2000 holding that the document was not admissible in. evidence for any purpose. The appellant preferred a civil revision in the High Court, against the aforesaid order of the trial court. It appears that a plea was raised. on behalf of the petitioner-revisionist that ~e document in question was executed in the year 1985, whereas the amendment in the Indian Registration Act for compulsory registration·of agreements fo sell, in the State of Rajasthan, came into force in the year 1989. The other plea raised is that an insufficiently stamped document can very well be impounded under the provisions of the Stamp Act. The revision was however rejected by the High Court observing as follows: .

"Even though the reasons given by the trial court for not exhibiting the document cannot be sustained but the perusal of the document.......... ". The High Court thereafter goes on to consider the document on its merit leaving aside the question of its admissibility any more and observed that signatures of Ram Sahay are not admitted by the other side nor the document bears the acceptance of the proposer therefore the contract could not be said to be a valid agreement under the relevant provisions of the Contract Act. • Finally it is observed 'in such circumstances document is not an agreement, as is being argued, now, in the eyes of law.

No injustice has been done to the petitioner by not admitting the said document" A perusal of the order passed by the High Court and the discussion held clearly shows that the court had completely mis-directed itself in embarking upon an enquiry into the validity of the document and ultimately, in holding that the document, sought to be exhibited by the defendant could not be held to be a valid agreement under the relevant provisions of the Contract Act. As a matter of fact, the question for consideration before the revisional court was confined to the admissibility of the document on the grounds raised by the plaintiff. The revisional court, after holding that the reasons given by the trial court, for not exhibiting the document, could not be sustained, exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the question of validity of the document on merits in the light of the provisions of the Contract Act. The order of the High Court virtually decided the suit.

It is beyond the scope of the revision petition and suffers from patent illegality on the face of it causing prejudice to the case of the defendant. " In view of the discussion held above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for its decision afresh, in accordance with law. We' are informed that the trial court has now decided the suit and a first appeal is P,_ending. The order of the trial court on the suit and further proceedings thereafter at any stage and orders passed thereon shall be subject to the orders on the revision petition by the High Court. Costs easy. v. s. s. Appeal disposed of.