Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajaram vs Purnima on 22 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697
1 MP-4353-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4353 of 2022
RAJARAM
Versus
PURNIMA
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Prabhakar Saraf - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Garg - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the legality and validity of order dated 26/8/2022 passed
by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Civil Suit
No.RCSA 0000002/2021 whereby the Court has rejected the objection taken
by the petitioner/defendant pertaining to the document styled as ‘extension in
limitation’ which was neither registered nor authenticated by the Notary.
2. It is submitted that the said document was neither part of the
registered document nor duly stamped by the notary and, therefore, the said
document was required to be properly stamped before admitting in the
evidence.
3. Facts draped in brevity are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit
for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction before the
court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Khachrod alleging the fact that for the land in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
17:24:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697
2 MP-4353-2022
dispute, an agreement was executed on 24/07/2019 by petitioner in favour of
respondent/plaintiff and as per the agreement the date of registration was
agreed to be 31/12/2019. As per the agreement, the earnest money was also
paid and remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of
registration of the sale deed. The pre-requisite condition was that the
defendant redeem the land in dispute, from the Bank of India, Branch
Khachrod and ICICI Bank, Branch Bhuwasa as also HDFC Bank, Ratlam.
Thereafter, extension of time was agreed, for which a separate agreement
was executed on 31/12/2019. It is further stated that a separate agreement is
neither duly stamped nor notarized/registered which is mandatory
requirement of law. The Petitioner/defendant filed his written statement
denying the facts alleged in the plaint and a specific special plea was also
made that the extension deed is not binding on the defendant. The trial court
framed issues and fixed the case for recording the evidence of plaintiff on
26/08/2022. On 26/08/2022 the respondent/plaintiff appeared in the witness
box and tried to exhibit the registered agreement dated 24/07/2019 alongwith
the extension deed executed on 31/12/2019 for which, on behalf of
petitioner, an objection was raised pertaining to admissibility of extension
deed of limitation on the ground that the deed dated 31/12/2019 is a separate
agreement which mandatorily require stamp duty for its registration or its
notarization. It was also urged before the Court that neither there is serial
number of the notary nor the notary stamp has been affixed by the aforesaid
notary. Assuming as if its novation of contract, a separate document ought to
have duly performed the mandatory requirements of Registration Act, Stamp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
17:24:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697
3 MP-4353-2022
Act and Notary Act with the Rules framed under the provisions of each Act.
The Court vide its order dated 26/08/2022 held that in earlier agreement
dated 31/12/2019 the only time has been extended and other recitals of the
agreement has neither been altered nor changed and rejected the objection
and accordingly exhibit the document.
4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that from perusal of ‘extension in
limitation’ executed or the registered deed, it is clear that for redemption of
land the time was extended which changed the entire earlier agreement which
ought to be separately duly stamped and registered. Thus, the trial Court has
erred in rejecting the objection of the petitioner.
5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that in a suit for
specific performance it is not necessary that the agreement should be a
registered agreement under the Registration Act, 1908 and as per Section 4
of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the document ‘extension of limitation’ is
deemed to be an “instrument”.
6. In regard to first submission by counsel for the petitioner that the
document of ‘extension in limitation’ which has been executed at the bottom
of the original registered agreement, has to be separately stamped and then
only it can be admitted in evidence, it is apposite to refer the judgments on
the issue.
7. In case of S.Kaladevi vs V.R. Somasundaram reported in AIR 2010
Supreme Court 1654 the Apex Court held that unregistered sale deed is
admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of contract. In the
case of Manish and Another vs. Anil Kumar reported in 2015 (2) MPLJ 645 ,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
17:24:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697
4 MP-4353-2022
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that in a suit for specific performance,
unregistered sale agreement is admissible in evidence. Documents required
to be registered if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a
contract in a suit for specific performance. The same has been followed by
another co-ordinate Bench in the case of Devi Singh Kushwah vs. Surajbhan
Singh Gurjar and Another reported in 2017 (1) MPWN 68 and it was held
that the suit for specific performance, unregistered agreement to sell may be
received as evidence. Same view has been taken by another co-ordinate
Bench at Indore in MA No.3583/2023(Oyster Building India Private Ltd. vs.
Vishveshwarlal Hardia and Ors.).
8. Thus in the light of the aforesaid documents, it is held that
unregistered agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance of contract
is admissible in evidence.
9. In regard to the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the
aforesaid document ‘extension in limitation’ which has been executed by the
parties at the bottom of the unregistered sale deed is required to be stamped
separately or not ? It is apposite to refer the provisions of Section 4 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1899. The word “instrument” has been defined under
Section 2 (14) of the said Act which is reproduced as under:
(14) “instrument” includes-
(a) every document, by which any right or liability is, or
purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended,
extinguished or recorded; (b) a document, electronic or
otherwise, created for a transaction in a stock exchange
or depository by which any right or liability is, or
purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended,
extinguished or recorded; and
(c) any other document mentioned in Schedule I,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
17:24:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16975 MP-4353-2022
but does not include such instruments as may be
specified by the Government, by notification in the
Official Gazette;]
10. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is held that the agreement for
extension of time executed between the parties is part of the original sale
deed. Thus, the trial Court has not erred in rejecting the objection of the
petitioner that the said document is not duly stamped. Thus, this Court is
does not find any case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
11. Even otherwise , it is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
subordinate Courts within its limitation. It can be exercised where the order
is passed in grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of the fundamental
principle of law and justice. [See. Jai Singh and another vs. MCD, (2010) 9
SCC 385 and Shalini Shetty vs. Rajendra S. Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329].
12. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh
Dubey and another vs. Tilak Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhopal
and another, 2004 (2) MPHT 14 held that supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the
subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a
subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has
failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction through
available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law
and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High
Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Be it a writ of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
17:24:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697
6 MP-4353-2022
certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to
correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are
satisfied – (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the fact of the proceedings
such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the
provisions of law; and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has
occasioned thereby.
13. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the instant petition is
devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The order impugned in the present
petition passed by the Court below is upheld.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
17:24:51
[ad_1]
Source link