Dilip Singh vs Ramnath

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 assails interlocutory order dated 8.1.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 54-A/2011 by Additional District Judge Lahar District Bhind whereby an application preferred by the defendants no. 1 and 2 respondents no. 1 and 2 herein filed u/S. 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1989 r/w Sec. 17(1)(B) of Registration Act 1908 has been allowed and the document in question nomenclatured as "Olinama" has been impounded by the trial court by treating it to be relinquishing deed exigible to stamp duty and registration charges.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a bare perusal of the said documents (filed at page 28 of the petition) discloses that the same is not a relinquishment deed and therefore the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse.

Perusal of the said document nomenclatured as ''Olinama'' written by one Ramnath Bhagelle is to the effect that the said Ramnath Bhagelle neither having issues nor wife is adopting his maternal grandson Dilip aged 10 years who is son of Ramsiya (nephew/Bhatija of Ramnath) who is taking care of Ramnath since long. The said document further states that the said Ramnath is relinquishing his estate in favour of Dilip.

In view of the terminology used in such document "Olinama" the intent of the executor is evident, which is to relinquish his property in favour of Dilip. The said document eventually transfers interest in property of the executor to another person which becomes chargeable with duty u/S. 3 of the Stamp Act.

In the present case neither any stamp duty nor any registration charges are tendered in respect of the said document nomenclatured as "Olinama" and therefore the said document is rightly held to be inadmissible in evidence.

The findings recorded by the trial court while holding the said documents to be relinquishment deed thereby rendering exigible to Stamp Duty and registration charges cannot be found fault with.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Mst. Param Pal Singh through Father Vs. National Insurance Company and Another, to contend that deed of adoption need not be specifically registered to be valid in law. The said decision is not applicable to the present case as the documents in question is not only an adoption deed but also a relinquishment deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the division bench decision of this court in the case of Munni Sharma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Mahendra Singh and Ors. Reported in 2010 (1) MPJR SN 9. In the said case the division bench after following earlier decision rendered in the case of Pooran Singh has laid down that the impounding of documents on discovering the same being insufficiently stamped, can be done when the stage of recording of evidence is commenced. Prior to the said stage, the document found to be insufficiently stamped should be sent to the Collector of Stamp instead of being impounded by the court. 3rd and the last judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante and Others, whereby it is inter alia laid down that memorandum of family statement arrived at between members of HUF do not require registration. The said decision of the Apex Court is of no application as it does not relate to relinquishment deed as is the case herein. The only decision which appears to be relevant is that of the division bench decision of this court in the case of Munni Sharma (supra).

Thus from the above discussion, it is evident that the findings of the trial court that the document in question which is nomenclatured as "Olinama" is a relinquishment deed is, tenable. However, since the stage of recording of evidence had not commenced before the trial court, this court relying upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Munni Sharma (supra) intends to interfere with the impugned order to the following extent.

Upholding the impugned order, this Court directs the trial court to forward the document in question nomenclatured as "Olinama" to Collector of Stamps of the area for doing the needful under the Stamp Act, 1899.

With the above said observations, present writ petition stands disposed of.