AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"a. Set aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned trial court, so far as to the order that the MOU (Annexure P- 3) is impounded and to be sent to the stamp collector Sehore, under section 38 of the Stamp Act. and/or
b. Grant any other relief(s) which, in the facts and circumstances, the Petitioners be found entitled to and which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience."
Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to express its anguish and displeasure with regard to words used by petitioner against the Court in Miscellaneous Petition. In Miscellaneous Petition, it has been mentioned that "the learned trial court arbitrarily passed the impugned order (Annexure P-4) thereby, opining that the MOU (Annexure P-3) is insufficiently stamped..............". Accordingly, counsel for petitioner was directed to explain the meaning of arbitrariness and to point out the reasons for using the words arbitrary passing of impugned order by the trial Court.
It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that he is not aware of the meaning of word 'arbitrary' and therefore, for lack of knowledge he has wrongly used that word. In fact, he should have pleaded that the trial Court had erred in law by passing impugned order.
Since counsel for petitioner has already admitted his lack of knowledge about the words used by him, therefore, this Court does not wish to dwell upon this issue any further. However, it is made clear that whenever any word is used against the Court, then the counsel must be cautious and ready to face the consequences of the same, if the said allegation is found to be incorrect.
Heard on the question of admission.
It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that an agreement to sell was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. In the agreement to sell, there is no averment to the effect that possession of part of land, which is subject matter of agreement to sell, has been delivered to petitioner. In spite of that the trial Court has directed that stamp duty at the rate of 7.5% should have been paid and accordingly, it has been directed that agreement to sell be forwarded to the Collector of Stamp, Sehore for impounding purposes.
Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since there is no averment in the agreement to sell that possession has been delivered to petitioner therefore, agreement to sell should have been executed on stamp paper of Rs.100/-.
Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
Petitioner, who is the plaintiff, has specifically pleaded in his plaint that by virtue of agreement to sell petitioner has already taken actual possession of 62 acres of land. When counsel for petitioner was directed to address on the question that when petitioner himself is claiming that by virtue of agreement to sell, he has already taken possession of 62 acres of land, then it is submitted that once it was not mentioned in the agreement to sell, therefore, subsequent action of petitioner in taking possession of 62 acres of land is an independent act and cannot be read alongwith agreement to sell. However, during the course of arguments, counsel for petitioner specifically submitted that in case if it is required, then he would certainly take the defence that since he is in possession of 62 acres of land by virtue of agreement to sell therefore, he is entitled to protect the same. Once, the petitioner has claimed that he has taken possession of 62 acres of land by virtue of agreement to sell, then pleadings of petitioner himself cannot be read in isolation of agreement to sell.
Under these circumstances, if the trial Court has held that stamp duty at rate of 7.5% is payable on the agreement to sell, then this Court is of considered opinion that no jurisdictional error was committed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, order dated 21.02.2024 passed by Principal District Judge, Sehore in RCSA No.2/2023 is hereby affirmed.
Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.