Whether unregistered relinquishment deed is admissible in evidence?

 By Exh.72, petitioner herein had objected to exhibit Relinquishment-Deed dated 21st December, 1996, copy whereof is at Annexure 'C' to this petition.

 This Court finds that in view of Section 34 read with Section 37 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958, and Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the document, in question, is rendered inadmissible in the following admitted premises:

[a] Suit is for partition and possession.

[b] Defendant's possession is admitted.

[c] Nothing is to be shown or proved for collateral purpose or issue from this document.

[d] Document is admittedly for Relinquishment of right in immovable property. for a disclosed consideration of Rs. 50,000/-.

[e] Document is on impressed stamp paper of Rs. 50/- which is admittedly insufficient.

[f] Document is not referred for compliance under Section 37 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958.

[g] Under Section 34, it is not admissible due to failure to comply with proviso to Section 34.

[h] Admittedly, it needs stamp chargeable as per law.

[i] This document is not registered.

11. In these premises of facts and law, namely statutory bar on Court falling from Section 17, read with Section 49[c] of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 34 read with Section 37 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958, only conclusion, which emerges, is that application [Exh.72] objecting admissibility is liable to be allowed, and is hereby allowed, and this Court holds that the Relinquishment-Deed dated 21st December, 1996 is not admissible in evidence.

Bombay High Court

Nilkanth Son Of Sampat Khandade vs Bhaurao Son Of Sampat Khandade And ... on 11 March, 2008

Equivalent citations: 2008 (3) BomCR 282

Author: A Joshi

1. This Court had issued notice of final disposal.
2. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. Notice to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.
4. Petitioner impugns the order at Annexure-I [page 47] passed below Exh.72.
5. By Exh.72, petitioner herein had objected to exhibit Relinquishment-Deed dated 21st December, 1996, copy whereof is at Annexure 'C' to this petition.
6. The objection incorporated in Exh.72 can be seen in Para Nos. 4 and 7 thereof which reads as follows:
4. Without prejudice to the contentions of the plaintiff that there is no point in getting the said document impounded, particularly when it is an unregistered document, it is submitted that it is the stamp Collector, who is the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, who is empowered to calculate the Stamp Duty payable on the aforesaid document and the penalty leviable thereof. It would thus appear that the calculation arrived at by the Nazir is of no consequence and has to be ignored.
7. ...As already stated that in view of the provision of Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act and in view of Section 17 read with Section 49 of Indian Registration Act read with the provision of the Indian Stamp Act, the said document cannot be permitted to be shown to the witness and the objection in this regard needs to be decided as early as possible and before further evidence of Defendant No. 1. It does not bear the signature of the plaintiff. [quoted from pages 44 and 45 of the Writ Petition Paper-book]
7. Respective parties have relied upon following citations:
[a] By petitioner:
[i] Durgashankar S. Trivedi and Ors. v. Babubhai Bhulabhai Parekh ,
[ii] P. Shanmugasamy v. Kausalya alias Krishnaveni 2005 (2) Civil L.J. 285,
[iii] Shailesh Harilal Poonatar v. Distt. Collector of Stamps and Ors. , and
[iv] Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal (2007) SCCR 169
[b] By Respondent No. 1:
[1] Roshan Singh and Ors. v. Zile Singh and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 881,
[2] Uma Devi and Anr. v. Shaik Hussain and Anr. 1999 (3) Civil LJ 129,
[3] Bama Kathari Patil v. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi and Anr. ,
[4] Boman P. Irani and Anr. v. Manilal P. Gala and Ors. , and
[5] Prasadnagar Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Nagpur v. State of Mah. and Ors. .
8. Perused the petition, annexures, citations relied and relevant provisions.
9. In the premises discussed hereinafter, it is not necessary to discuss any of the precedents cited at bar.
10. This Court finds that in view of Section 34 read with Section 37 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958, and Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the document, in question, is rendered inadmissible in the following admitted premises:
[a] Suit is for partition and possession.
[b] Defendant's possession is admitted.
[c] Nothing is to be shown or proved for collateral purpose or issue from this document.
[d] Document is admittedly for Relinquishment of right in immovable property. for a disclosed consideration of Rs. 50,000/-.
[e] Document is on impressed stamp paper of Rs. 50/- which is admittedly insufficient.
[f] Document is not referred for compliance under Section 37 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958.
[g] Under Section 34, it is not admissible due to failure to comply with proviso to Section 34.
[h] Admittedly, it needs stamp chargeable as per law.
[i] This document is not registered.
11. In these premises of facts and law, namely statutory bar on Court falling from Section 17, read with Section 49[c] of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 34 read with Section 37 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958, only conclusion, which emerges, is that application [Exh.72] objecting admissibility is liable to be allowed, and is hereby allowed, and this Court holds that the Relinquishment-Deed dated 21st December, 1996 is not admissible in evidence.
12. In these premises, Rule is made absolute in terms of Para 11 above. In the circumstances, parties shall bear own costs.

Print Page