HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.Nos. 1634 and 1635 of 2002 Date: 06-12-2010 Between: Rajesh Mali ………. Petitioner and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Charminar Cross Road, Hyderabad and another …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.Nos. 1634 and 1635 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) Since both these matters are virtually between the same parties and involved common question, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellants in these two appeals is one and the same and is the unsuccessful petitioner in the two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5443 and 5448 of 2001, which were filed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereunder he sought to assail two different orders in the Revisions, dated 19-02-2001, rejecting his claim for refund of the amount on the stamp paper which, according to him, seems to have been burnt accidentally and inadvertently. The initial rejection of the application by the second respondent was by an order, dated 16-03-1999 and the said orders have been confirmed in the Revisions by the aforesaid orders, which are impugned in these proceedings. 3. Briefly, the facts, which are not in dispute and which have been dealt in detail by the learned single Judge in two different orders passed in the said two writ petitions, are that on 03-08-1998, the appellant-petitioner has purchased stamp papers worth Rs.2,50,000/- for getting the sale deed typed on those stamp papers with regard to purchasing a house property at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and for subsequent registration thereon. However, according to the appellant- petitioner, the stamp papers worth Rs.1,00,000/- in each case was partially burnt accidentally when they came in contact with a candle fire since there was a sudden failure of power at the relevant point of time. Hence, he filed an application under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’) for refund of the amount of the non- judicial stamp paper. An enquiry was held by the second respondent separately in these two cases, where the evidence was recorded and ultimately the request of the appellant-petitioner was rejected by the orders, dated 16-03-1999 mainly on the ground that his claim does not fall well within the parameters as contemplated under Section 49(d) or any of the provisions under Chapter V of the Act. On Revisions, the first respondent did not accede to the appellant’s request and rejected the same confirming the said orders. Hence, the writ petitions. 4. When the matters were taken up before the learned single Judge, a detailed enquiry was made by going into and looking at the relevant stamp papers and its corresponding details to find out the truth or otherwise genuineness of the claim as set forth by the appellant-petitioner. It was found by the learned single Judge that according to the appellant-petitioner, the sale deeds were to be executed by Dr. Eswar Punjabi and the stamp papers were purchased in the name of the appellant-petitioner namely Rakesh Mali for self, but the ultimate use was in the different name and that too as Karta of HUF, and therefore, on this ground, both the authorities have rejected the claim as not falling well within the contemplated parameters of making another instrument in lieu of the earlier transaction for which the stamps were purchased. Since the transactions are totally in different names, it would not fall within the mandate as contemplated. Further, the learned single Judge, by taking into account the object and the conditions as required and pursuant to each and every stamp paper in the first case, found that: It is seen from the records, on 3-8-1998 Mr. Rakesh Malik purchased the following stamp papers: Sl No. Purchased By Purchased For Denomination & Nos. Machine Nos. Total Value 1. Rakesh Malik S/o S.C. Malik Self Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648143 to 648148 763524 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 2. Rakesh Malik Rajesh Malik Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648149 to 648154 763525 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Rakesh Malik Niraj Malik Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648155 to 648160 763526 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 4. Rakesh Malik Suresh Chandra Malik Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648161 to 648166 763527 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 5. Rakesh Malik Suresh Chandra Malik (Kartha HUF) Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648167 to 648172 763528 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 6. Rakesh Malik Mrs. Suman Malik Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648173 to 648178 763529 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- In the instant case the sale deed was executed by Dr. Eshwar Punjabi in favour of Mrs. Suman Malik. The 1st six sheets of the sale deed were typed on Rs.15,000/- non-judicial stamp papers purchased on 3-8-1998 with machine nos.OOBB 648173 to 178 from 7th to 12th sheet were typed on Rs.15,000/- non-judicial stamp papers purchased on 23-10-1998 with machine nos.OOBB 648310 to 315 and 13th and 18th sheets were typed on stamp papers of Rs.15,000/- purchased on 23-10-2002 with machine nos.OOBB 648316 to 321. 19th and 20th sheets were typed on stamp paper of Rs.10,000/- each with machine No.OOAA 766100 to 101 purchased on 23-10-1998. 21st sheet was typed on stamp paper purchased on 3-8- 1998 with machine no.OOAA 763529. According to the petitioner, sheets from 7 to 12 and 20 were partly burnt and therefore they were substituted by fresh set of stamp papers in favour of Mrs. Suman Malik. This is palpably false and misleading. The sale deed which was executed in favour of Mrs.Suman Malik registered document no.2418 of 1998 contains of total 21 sheets. Out this bunch, first six sheets are of Rs.15,000/- each purchased on 3-8-1998. 7th to 12th sheets (6 sheets) are of Rs.15,000/- denominations each purchased on 23-10-1998 having machine numbers 648310 to 648315. Out of the balance nine sheets, Rs.15,000/- denominations sheets (six) with machine no.648316 and 648321 were issued on 24-10-1998 (sheet no.13 to 18). Balance three sheets are of Rs.10,000/- denomination each. The machine no. of sheet 19 and 20 are OOAA 766100 and 101 purchased on 23-10-1998 and last sheet (21st sheet) of Rs.10,000/- was purchased on 3-8-1998 with machine no.OOAA 763529. According to the petitioner 7th to 12th sheets and 20th sheet were burnt unintentionally which formed part of earlier sale deed prior to its registration. As can be seen from the alleged burnt sheets, sheets 7 to 12 are of Rs.15,000/- denomination purchased by Rakesh Malik with machine no.OOBB 648149 to 648154 and 20th sheet is of Rs.10,000/- denomination with machine no.OOAA 763525. But these sheets were purchased by Rakesh Malik for Rajesh Malik on 3-8-1998. But the sale deed was typed in favour of Smt. Suman Malik. These sheets did not form part of earlier sale deed. Further the replaced sheets were purchased on 23-10-1998 have continuous serial machine numbers from sheet no.7 to 18. Thus it totally falsifies the claim of the petitioner that sheets 7 to 12 were partly burnt and that he replaced by new stamps. Even a perusal of the partly burnt stamp papers also reveals that they were burnt only at the crucial place where the name “for whom purchased” ought to contain. It is also noticed that in all the sheets they were burnt only at that place. Fortunately the machine numbers were not burnt. The machine numbers of the stamps for which refund was claimed were purchased by Rakesh Malik for Rajesh as can be seen from the stamps purchased by him on 3-8-1998. Hence, the evil design of the petitioner is writ at large. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the burnt sheets were purchased for Smt. Suman Malik they were substituted by purchasing the new stamps. The contention is not only fallacious but misleading.” Similarly in the second case, the learned single Judge, on a careful perusal of the record, found: Sl No. Purchased By Purchased For Denomination & Nos. Machine Nos. Total Value 1. Rakesh Malik S/o S.C. Malik Self Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648143 to 648148 763524 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 2. Rakesh Malik Rajesh Malik Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648149 to 648154 763525 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Rakesh Malik Niraj Malik Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648155 to 648160 763526 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 4. Rakesh Malik Suresh Chandra Malik Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648161 to 648166 763527 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 5. Rakesh Malik Suresh Chandra Malik (Kartha HUF) Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648167 to 648172 763528 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- 6. Rakesh Malik Mrs. Suman Malik Rs.15,000/- (6 Nos.) Rs.10,000/- (1 No.) 648173 to 648178 763529 Rs.90,000/- Rs.10,000/- In the instant case the sale deed was executed by Dr. Eshwar Punjabi in favour of Suresh Chandra Malik Karta HUF. The 1st four sheets of the sale deed were typed on Rs.25,000/- non- judicial stamp papers purchased on 29-10-1998 with machine nos.OODD 490407 to 410 from 5th to 16th sheet are typed on Rs.15,000/- non-judicial stamp papers purchased on 3-8-1998 with machine nos.OOBB 648161 to 172 and 17th and 18th sheets are typed on stamp papers of Rs.10,000/- purchased on 3-8-2002 with machine nos.OOAA763527 and 528. According to the petitioner, sheets from 13 to 19 were partly burnt and therefore they were substituted by fresh set of stamp papers in favour of Suresh Chandra Malik Karta HUF. This is palpably false and misleading. The sale deed which was executed in favour of Suresh Chandra Malik registered document no.2543/1998 contains of total 18 sheets. Out this bunch, first four sheets are of Rs.25,000/- each purchased on 29- 10-1998. 5th to 16th sheets (12 sheets) are of Rs.15,000/- denominations each purchased on 3-8-1998 having machine numbers 648161 to 648172. The balance two sheets are of Rs.10,000/- denominations each with machine no.763528 and 763527 issued on 3-8-1998. Thus it can be seen that the sheets containing page nos.13 to 19 alleged to be forming part of sale deed executed in favour of Suresh Chandra Malik were never replaced. On the other hand, the entire bunch contains only 18 sheets. He could not have replaced the sheets from sheet no.13 to 19. Further the sheets from 13 to 18 in the registered document are dated 3-8-1998 and therefore the question of replacing them did not arise at all. Even a perusal of the partly burnt stamp papers also reveals that they were burnt only at the crucial place where the name “for whom purchased” ought to contain. It is also noticed that in all the sheets they were burnt only at that place. Fortunately the machine numbers were not burnt. The machine numbers of the stamps for which refund was claimed were purchased by Rakesh Malik for self as can be seen from the stamps purchased by him on 3-8-1998. Hence, the evil design of the petitioner is writ at large. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the burnt sheets were purchased for Suresh Chandra Malik and they were substituted by purchasing the new stamps. The contention is not only fallacious but misleading.” 5. From the above, it is quite apparent and there is no answer much less any explanation coming forth during the course of arguments in these appeals as to how the alleged claim could be allowed. The learned single Judge has categorically found that there is a clear-cut fraud committed by the appellant-petitioner on this count by coming forth with such claim, which is totally not based on the true statement of affairs or record. 6. We have also perused the entire record and the orders of the learned single Judge in these two matters. There is no answer coming forth on behalf of the appellant-petitioner as to how such claim of the alleged burnt papers could be connected with that of the freshly executed transaction. There is a falsification, as found by the learned single Judge, which could be noticed only after the critical look at the documents by taking note of the machine numbers, which has been suppressed. It is also found that the burning is only at the crucial page where the name “for whom purchased” ought to contain. There is no dispute to the fact that the alleged stamp papers were purchased in the name of the appellant-petitioner, but ultimate transaction is on totally different names. The ultimate transaction is in the name of Mr. Suman Malik, but the stamp papers were purchased in the name of the appellant-petitioner as Rakesh Malik. 7. Even though several contentions were sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant-petitioner trying to bring the case within the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, however, neither in the grounds of Appeal nor during the course of arguments, glaring lapses and errors as could be noticed, which are self-speaking as to the falsity of the claim, have not been properly explained or answered. Nor there is any further material forthcoming even in these appeals to regulate the situation laid by the appellant-petitioner himself and necessarily it is he who alone has to be found fault and become answerable as rightly held by the learned single Judge in these two matters. 8. We have once again given a careful consideration and attention and also having satisfied as to the correctness of the finding as ultimately arrived at by the learned single Judge including the reasons given in support, we do not find any reason to vary with the same. The learned single Judge, having found fault with the appellant’s method of putting forth such false claim, has rightly held that the case requires to be rejected with the imposition of exemplary costs and also ordered for laying a criminal action against the appellant-petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the above appeals. 9. Both the Appeals are accordingly, dismissed. However, since the learned single Judge has already imposed exemplary costs, which would suffice to meet the ends of justice, we do not propose to impose any further costs in these appeals. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 06-12-2010 YCR