TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 2026
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced before this Court on 15.04.2019. 2. Inspite of repeated words of caution being sounded in the past by this Hon'ble Court, while passing the earlier judgment dated 17.08.1993 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 432/1992 preferred against the order dated 22.11.1982 passed by learned Civil Judge, Nagaur in Civil Original Case No. 9/63, the adjudication still continues. 3. This Court also observes that it was brought to the knowledge of this Court that there was a direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to expeditiously adjudicate the present writ petition, as it pertains to a suit, which was instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents way back 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partition deed, decided the said revision petition vide its judgment dated 08.08.1966 with the following direction: "the unregistered document can however be used to prove the factum of partition as mere severance of joint status does not affect the immovable property as was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nani Bai Vs. Gita Bai. The deed cannot be looked into, to find out what properties were partitioned. The deed is however unstamped and it can be used for the collateral purpose to prove the factum of partition only after the requisite duty and penalty as determined by the trial court have been paid" 10. In view of the aforequoted direction of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned trial court. The defendants/petitioners however, questioned the judgment of the Collector (Stamp), Nagaur -cum- Deputy Inspector General Stamp and Registration, Ajmer by filing an application before the learned trial court on the ground that the stamp duty was to be determined on the value of the property at the rate when the document was executed i.e. on 10.11.1951. 15. The learned trial court on 22.01.2007 allowed the aforesaid application filed by the defendants/petitioners and ordered that the document in question may be sent back to the Collector (Stamp), Nagaur -cum- Deputy Inspector General Stamp and Registration, Ajmer with a direction to determine its value at the 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 Collect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accordance with the law prevailing, the stamp duty was to be determined according to the law and rates in force at the time of execution of the document in question. In this regard, learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Nanga Vs. Dhannalal & Ors., reported in AIR 1962 Rajasthan 68 (V 49 C 12), relevant portion of which reads as under:- "6. I may observe at the very outset that the view taken by the learnted Civil Judge is not correct. The proper amount of duty required for an instrument is to be determined according to the law in force at thte time of the execution, of the instrument and not when it is tendered 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 instrumen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urpose of calculation of stamp duty. Though the matter could have been considered by the Appellate Authority in view of our reasoning that there was no serious objection and in fact the said alternative remedy was not agitated seriously and in view of the factual details based on which the High Court has quashed the order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Additional District Collector, we are not inclined to interfere at this juncture." 22. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in S.P. Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 Madras 296, relevant portion of which 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 attem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure." 14. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 09.08.2004 is ex-facie illegal and contrary to law. The same is therefore quashed and set aside. 24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that the conduct of the defendants/petitioners is to be seriously condemned by this Court, as even when they had an order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 17.08.1993 for getting the partition deed in question stamped, then also the defendants/petitioners have totally failed to put the same for the necessary stamping, until the year 2003. 25. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents further submitted that the lapse of ten years in getting 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1963, the matter is still alive without completion of the adjudication process. However, this Court is tied down to the precedent 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. 32. This Court also finds that had the defendants/petitioners chosen to act in time, then of course, as per the precedent law, they would have a right to get the value of the document in question determined from the Collector Stamps, Nagaur payable on the document of partition deed on the date when the same was executed i.e. 10.11.1951, and 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 Stat....