L ••> '. H!SH COURT OF JUDiCATURE CHHATTSSGARH: BILASPUR Sjngte Bench: Hon'bie Shri Sstish K. Asnihotri, J. / y.P.-No. 251 of 2007 P^fiti Petitfoner Avanish Kumar Chouhan Versus Rsspondente : v"jay Krishna Mishra \/&S'it Shri A. K. Prasad, Advocate for the pstitioner. oiijin. r\. ORDER {Passed on this<37day of February', 2007) 1. By tt*iis peft'tjon fiied under ArticSe 227 of She ConstHution of india the petitfoner chailsnges the validity of the order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 9.1.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed in Civii Suit No. 1-B/2006 by the Additional District Judge, Gariaband, Disfc'ict Raipur. 2. The case of the petitioner is Shat the petitioner has filed a Civi! Suit No. 1-B/2006 for recover>' of money on fte basis of the unregistered saie deed dated 4.8.2003, for a consideration of Rs. 2,70,(KSO/- for purchase of a house and a land admeasuring 10150 sq. feet, situated at viiiage Gariyaband, Disfrict- Raipur. The said sate deed v/as required to be du!y registered aftertatdng She due permission from fte Coitector. 3. The land being in scheduted area vested in She SSate Govemment under the provisions of SecSion 165 (6) ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Cods,1959 (for short 'the Land Revenue Code'). Thus, v/ithout permission of the Coitector, the said disputed !and could not be fransferred Jn favour ofthe peSitioner. The purportsd document of saie deed was accordingiy not 2 ^^3 ^ ^-L- registered. Accordsng to learned counsel it couid noS be registered due to the tack of penviission frosn the Coitector. 4, The rsspondent fited an applicaSlon under Order 7 Rute 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civii Procedure, 1908 and Section 35 of the indian Starrsp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Stainp Act') for rejection of the piaint on ths ground that Itiough the suit for the relief ciaimed 'ft'as properly vaiusd, but ttse insufRcient stamp duty was paid on fhe unregistered sa!s deed. The trial Court directed the Registrar to detsrmine the amount for impounding ie unregistered sa!s dsed. The Deputy Regisfrar in repiy submifted diat on caicuiation the stamp duty corfies to Rs. 23926.50 and on that amount 10 fc'rnes penaity at {he minimum rafe of Rs. 5/- be irr.posed. 5. The triai Court heid ttiat as per Schedute 5 of Articie 23 of the Stamp Act, the ptaintHT (petitloner) is required to pay a court fses at She rats of 7.50% of the SoSai vaiue of the suit and further to pay 10 {imas penalty as per Section 35 of $he Stamp Act, thers&y th®pteintiff (petitioner) was required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,01,900/- as Court fees. 6. The petitioner - piainfriSf had aiready paid a sum of Rs. 20^0/- for impoundiRg ths unregfetsred saie dsed. Learned counsei submits that no stemp duty is payabie on an unregistersd document ifthe same is used for tfte coiiatera! purpose. In support of his contention Ssarned counsei rell^d on a dedsion of fchs Hon'ble Suprems Court in the cass of Sondar S'mgh and ottiers Vs. Nihai SiRyhatid ogiers {(2003) 4 SCC 161}. The facte of feat case wers entireiy cliffsrent. in Siat case Sie question for consieferaSiGn was asto v/hether the piaintiffe were in hostiie continyous possession of the suit Sands by virtue of which they had perfectsd thelr Si8e to the land by adverse possession. On 8ie basis of the conSnuous possessfon of the piaintiSs over frse suit !and, since 1931 ¥. Thakur 3 Sfte unregistered sals deed was required in the svidence for coilaSeraS purpose for estabiishing their possession over the iand. In ftat case Hon'ble Supreme Court heid as under:- •5. father of Jhe sa!e deed dated 9.5.1931 by Fakir Chand, the defendante in fsvour of Toia Singh, the predscsssor- in-intsrest of the p!ainti!fe, Is an admitted document in the sense Its execution is not sn diss^ite. The only defence set up against the said documenS is that it is unstamped and ynregistered and therefore iS cannot convey Sitie to gie !and in fevour of Shs piaintiffs. Under ttie !aw a sate deed is required to be propsriy stamped and registered before it can convsy tifle to the vendee. Howevsr, iegai posifion is ctear Saw that a document Sike the sate deed in Uie present case, even friough not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for coSiaterai purposes. in the present case the coilaterai purpose to be seen is ttie nature of possession of the p!aintift3 over the suit land.. ......." 7. In the present case, the entire claim of recovspy' of money is on tt'.e basis of the unregistered saie deed which has to be registered under the provisions ofSection 49 ofthe Regisfration AcS, 1908. The non payment of the stamp dut, amounts to caussng toss to the govemment which is not permissibie under the !aw. 8. I have gons through the impugned orders and other documente -spt^^»^..»4A/4+^..^F<s4'/\ ! f^^\ v\^^ f!ts»t:A '<n*? :i *e?^'R.^^JH/an Syt i?<'?'^i.s-?,faFi*^-^! I.B.M (a.Fp^iiu^y yi^i^i^. i yy ii^i ifiiU taiiy jU^liii^tiUyii ili ilH^ii^iiiiy Wllii lii' impugned orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Gariaband, District Raipur. Q ^^^9, ^yvsyii {^ffs^--^ -rt?-.ifs--^FV* -^fv^ .'»^s.'^v^'.i'5?^^i,^ps-^L^I.'s Tl*^»^? ^^itf? ^f-ifis^' i?"s M'v^,?f*'i^^ w. i H^? 'iiiiyuyii^U Uiu^i^? ni^ Uli^A<LiSyU^ii<ai>?i^. i iiU^ iiHii? ^rVUiit il of its supervisor/ powers under Articie 227 ofthe ConstituSion of India, is not inciined to inteifere with the impugned order. There ss no infirmity, [ffj^.^'a^tlftsj ^iif li^^t.1/ .^f si sv'tff^t^f'i.f^.'^ ssfi p'i-i^?^?*:yti»t f't*»/?t ..'kir.?4. ire? TS^ii?^ i^A+1+t/^d !»"? jiiiiiy vi ia^-iS. vi iUiiisyiCUUii Hi pH^^iiiy lii^ vlU^i^. i ilt'o p^Ui •'^^fif^ffSiyi^fkt ?jie?¥*i&c&?'l ?*! i»»^r¥*-'3?II*/• : "~ HUiityty ^fSiiiias^;^, i»Uiiiiiioiiiiy. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /