Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 22 February, 2001
9. But in the present case, the trial court straight away admitted and marked the disputed document Ex.A.1 without even directing the plaintiff to pay the necessary deficit stamp fee with penalty as laid down by this Court in many of the decisions. Therefore, the trial court has committed an error in marking Ex.A.1, partition deed, which is inadmissible unless required stamp duty with penalty is paid on the said instrument. Therefore the Ex.A.1 partition is deed is liable to be rejected from evidence.
Section 35 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ram Rattan (Dead) By Legal ... vs Bajrang Lal & Ors on 5 May, 1978
He also relied on the judgement in Ram Rattan v. Bajrang Lal wherein a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a document is tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box and objection is raised by the defendants that the document is inadmissible in evidence as it is not duly stamped or for want of registration, it is obligatory upon the trial Judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and to decide the objection in accordance with law. In the above decision, the trial court admitted and marked the document by recording the objection and their Lordships held that such recording clearly indicates that when the objection was raised it was not judicially determined and the document was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation Section 36 would not be attracted. In the present case also taking notice of the same it is averred that the defendants have objected for marking of Ex.A.1 partition deed.
Section 17 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
1