Goutam Bhaduri JUDGMENT
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
1. The present petition is against the order dated 30.11.2017, whereby the application filed under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899') raising objection about the admissibility of a document tendered during the evidence, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of this case which would be necessary for adjudicating the dispute involved in the present petition are that present respondent No. 1 Smt. Meenakshi Trivedi, Respondent No. 2 Manohar Lal Trivedi, Respondent No. 3 Vimal Trivedi and Respondent No. 4 Snehal Trivedi had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 133-A/2011 before the VI Additional District Judge, Raipur against respondents No. 5 to 21 and the petitioner for partition of the house situated within the Municipal limit of Raipur and claimed partition of 1/5th share each and preliminary decree was sought by appointment of a Commissioner. The other relief was claimed that after the partition by the Commissioner final decree be passed and each of the parties be put to their possession of the suit property.
3. The further case of the Respondents No. 1 to 4 and the plaintiff is that house bearing No. 10/455 admeasuring 2400 sq. feet was owned by Late Shri Parmeshwar Dayal Shukla and the same was purchased in the name of Smt. Bhagwati Bai by sale deed dated 19.2.1950. The Family tree as was given in the plaint is reproduced hereunder:-
4. It was further pleaded that the son and daughter of Late Paremeshwar Dayal Shukla namely Smt. Ganga Tiwari, Late Smt. Kamla Bai Tiwari and son and daughters of Late Smt. Mangla Bai Mishra namely Narendra Kumar Mishra, Smt. Shashi Mishra and Smt. Sudha Sharma being grandson and daughters by a written consent letter dated 20.06.1996 had relinquished their right in respect of the said house (bearing No. 10/445) i.e., suit property situated at Budhapara, Raipur. Further it was pleaded that no partition was effected till 2005 by Parmeshwar Dayal Shukla, as such, the daughters namely Smt. Ganga Tiwari, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Mangla did not inherit any right over the property and the properties were in possession of the petitioner/defendants namely Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar Shukla and Smt. Usha Shukla & Saurabh Shukla. It was further pleaded that legal heirs of Late Smt. Mangla Mishra had executed a consent letter in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) that they do not want any share in the property. It was further pleaded that one of the sharer Ram Sanehi Shukle by will dated 09.03.1997 has bequeathed his 1/5th Share i.e. 487 sq. feet of property in favour of Manohar Trivedi. Thereby, by way of a consent other legal heirs have become the owners.
5. The said allegations were rebutted in the reply. During the course of evidence when the consent letter whereby the rights which were relinquished by few of the sharers in favour of the plaintiff was sought to be exhibited in evidence, an objection was raised about the admissibility of that document. Further an application under Section 35 of the Act, 1899 was filed reiterating the pleading of the plaintiff of relinquishment deed dated 20.06.1996 and it was stated that the said relinquishment deed was executed only on Rs. 10/- Stamp which is an unregistered document. It was also pleaded that the value of the property for which the relinquishment deed operates is more than Rs. 100/-, therefore, as per the Article 55 Schedule 1 A of the Act, 1899 of the Stamp Act, the stamp duty would be attracted over the value of the property. It was further pleaded that since the document was insufficiently stamped as such it could not be admitted under Section