Stamp Duty Deficiency Must Be Dealt With Forthwith; Trial Court Can't Keep Issue Pending For Years: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a trial court cannot allow a statutory objection concerning stamp duty to remain pending for years merely because the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.The bench of Justice Farjand Ali clarified that while Order XIV Rule 2 CPC generally requires courts to decide all issues together, and it does not permit an objection that can be dealt...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a trial court cannot allow a statutory objection concerning stamp duty to remain pending for years merely because the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali clarified that while Order XIV Rule 2 CPC generally requires courts to decide all issues together, and it does not permit an objection that can be dealt with through a prescribed statutory procedure to remain in procedural limbo.
The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order of the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which had declined the petitioners' request to decide as a preliminary issue whether the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs were inadmissible for being unregistered and insufficiently stamped. This was framed as Issue No.4 in the suit.
The underlying civil suit concerns property and was instituted on the basis of agreements dated March 4, 1976 and June 21, 2001. The defendants disputed the enforceability and admissibility of the documents, contending that they were neither duly stamped nor registered.
Issue No.4 was subsequently framed on whether the document relied upon by the plaintiffs was inadmissible on account of insufficient stamp duty and non-registration. The issue, however, remained pending for several years, with repeated dates being granted for hearing and the suit being transferred between courts.
It was petitioners' case that the effect of such non-registration and insufficiency of stamp, should be decided by the trial court as preliminary issue. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that this issue was not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and fact. Hence, the trial court directed the suit to be proceeded further as per law.
To challenge the order of the trial court, the petitioners filed the present petition before the Court. It was highlighted that the issue had remained pending for several years and repeated dates were granted for hearing, hence there was substantial delay.
On the contrary, the respondents argued that the controversy related to the documents relied upon and their admissibility, which could not be finally adjudicated without considering the pleading and evidence.
After hearing the contentions, the Court firstly clarified the legal position. It held that as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document, affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
Similarly, in relation to the insufficiency of stamp, it was opined that though an insufficiently stamped document could not be received in evidence in its existing form, the statutory scheme provided for determination and recovery of the deficient stamp duty and penalty, post which the document could be dealt with as per law.
Post this observation, the Court highlighted that,
“…learned trial Court has observed that Issue No.4 involves mixed questions of fact and law and, therefore, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue, the said view, to that extent, is consistent with the scheme of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC. However, that conclusion does not conclude the matter. The learned trial Court was still required to deal with the admitted statutory objection regarding insufficiency of stamp duty in the manner prescribed by law. The pendency of the controversy for several years could not justify keeping the document and the objection thereto in a state of procedural limbo.”
The Court observed that in case of insufficiency of stamp duty, the appropriate course was not to adjudicate the issue by treating it as preliminary, but to follow the statutory procedure of determining the deficient stamp duty which could have been paid by the party and the trial could have proceeded.
“The original suit is pending since the year 2014. The proceedings relating to Issue No.4 themselves have continued for several years, commencing with the framing of the issue in 2009 and continuing through repeated dates, transfers and hearings. The litigants cannot be subjected to further indefinite delay on account of an interlocutory controversy which can now be dealt with by following the statutory procedure.”
Accordingly, the Court modified the challenged order of the trial court to this extent, and directed the trial court to decide the suit independently.
Title: Harisingh Rajput v Dr. Chhail Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 349