Hardan Singh vs Commissioner,Meerut Division,Meerut & Ors.

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for respondents.

Udaivansh Narain Singh executed a registered saledeed on 12 11971 in favour of Bhavi Chand the elder brother of the petitioner Hardan Singh. Thereafter petitioner filed O.S. No. 1327 of 1988 against his brother Bhavi Chand pleading that the transaction was benami and plaintiff was the real owner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 1011991 by VIIth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut. The operative portion of the judgment/decree is to the effect that plaintiff''s suit is decreed ex parte with cost and it is declared that plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the house in dispute bearing No. 273 (which was subjectmatter of the saledeed). It appears that afterwards some application was filed before the Court which decreed the suit and thereupon the Court passed an order on 681992 directing that the Registrar should make note on the original saledeed that true owner was Hardan Singh Advocate. Neither the copy of the application nor complete copy of the order has been filed alongwith this writ petition. The original saledeed was thereafter produced before the SubRegistrar by the petitioner, and the Sub Registrar on 2981992 on the saledeed endorsed that Hardan Singh Advocate was the true owner. It was further mentioned that it was done in pursuance of order of civil Court dated 681992. It appears that similar endorsement was also made in the relevant register kept in the office of the Registrar. On the basis of the said entry, proceedings under Section 47A Stamp Act was initiated against the petitioner and deficiency of Rs. 32,978.50 was determined. The order was passed by A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) dated 11121996 in case No. 1970 of 199293 and through the said order effect of the aforesaid endorsement was treated to be a fresh deed. Reference was also made to Sections 13 and 14 of the Stamp Act. According to Section 14 �no second instrument chargeable with duty shall be written upon a piece of stamped paper upon which an instrument, chargeable with duty, has already been written.�

Against the said order petitioner filed revision being revision No. 27 of 199697. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut through order dated 2231999 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

In my opinion Civil Judge had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass the subsequent order dated 681992. After passing the decree the Court became functus officio and subsequent direction of appending note on the saledeed was utterly without jurisdiction. Declaratory decree is not capable of being executed.

Accordingly, both the impugned orders are quashed on the condition that within three months the petitioner again produces the saledeed before the SubRegistrar who shall score off the subsequent endorsement made by him on 2981992 and if any endorsement was made on the register then the same shall also be scored off. For a period of three months recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. After cancellation of the endorsement as aforesaid the amount deposited under interim order of this Court shall be returned without any interest.

If within three months the aforesaid endorsement is not scored off then the impugned orders shall remain intact and recovery proceedings shall proceed.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.