Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Sections 39 and 40 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, provides as under:
"39 - Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.- No instrument chargeable with duty under this Act shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any (7 of 17) person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:
21. The appellant having consented to the document being marked as an exhibit has lost his right to reopen the question."

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Laxmi Narayan Singhal Vs. ADJ No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Ors., reported in 2011(3) WLC (Raj.) 427, relevant portion of which reads as under:

"5. Hence, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that one document i.e. agreement to sell was tendered in evidence on 17.8.2004 and exhibited and marked as Ex. 1. The defendant, during the examination of plaintiff and his witnesses, did not raise any objection with regard to the inadmissibility of document i.e. agreement to sell. He filed an application under Section 151 of CPC at the stage when the defendant was subjected to cross- examination. In the matter of Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agrawal (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act, (which is analogous to Section 40 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998), provides for a 'stand alone' clause. It categorically prohibits a court of law from reopening a matter with regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument, in the event the same has been admitted in evidence. Only one exception has been made in this behalf, the provisions contained in Section 61 providing for reference and revision, in a case under Section 33 of the Act.

"22. On consideration of the aforesaid judgments, it is now well settled that an unregistered sale deed/ agreement to sell is admissible in evidence in a civil suit for specific performance on account of proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908. As regard the document is insufficiently stamped, it is also well settled that when the document is exhibited and the entire trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross examination of their witnesses, then Section 40 of the Stamp Act, 1998 comes into operation and it is not open to be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The said principle is equally applicable to the appellate court which is exercising the same jurisdiction of the trial court. The defendant appellant is debarred from taking such an objection at any stage of the same suit or in the present appeal on this ground, therefore, agreement to sell (Ex.2) has rightly been admitted by the trial court in evidence."