Holding

The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by adjudicating the validity of the document; its order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination limited to admissibility.

Summary

Ram Sahay filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of a shop. The defendant, Nawal Kishore, claimed an agreement to sell the shop existed, but the plaintiff objected to its exhibition on the grounds that it was unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The trial court upheld the objection, holding the document inadmissible. On revision, the High Court dismissed the trial court's order, examined the document on its merits, and declared it not a valid agreement under the Contract Act, thereby exceeding its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the revisional court could only consider the admissibility of the document, not its substantive validity, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, in a revision under Section 115 of the CPC, can go beyond the question of admissibility and decide on the substantive validity of an unregistered, insufficiently stamped document.
Whether the revisional jurisdiction is limited to procedural aspects such as admissibility of evidence.

Legislation cited

Subjects

revision jurisdictionadmissibility of evidenceregistration of agreementsstamp dutycontract validitycivil procedureSection 115 CPC

Judgment

A NA WAL KISHORE TULARA
v.
DINESH CHAND GUPTA AND ORS.

JULY 25, 2001

B [S.P. BHARUCHA, Y._K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

Section 115-Revisiona/ Jurisdiction-Power and scope of High Court-
C Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and ownershit:r-Defendant pleaded that
plaintiff entered into agreement with him to sell the suit property-Plaintiff
objected to the document for want oj regiStration and sufficient stamp duty--
Trial court allowed ·the objection-However, High Court considered the
document on its merits and held it not to be a valid agreement and dismissed ·
the revision-Correctness of-Held: High Court exceeded its revisional
D jurisdiction in entering into the question of validity of the document on
merits-Hence, matter remitted for decision afresh.

The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration of ownership, and also for possession, of the suit property. The
E appellant-defendant contended that the respondent-plaintiff had entered into
an agreement with him to sell the suit property But the respondent-plaintiff
objected to "exhibit" the said document as it was unregistered and also
insufficiently stamped. The trial court allowed the objection arid held that the
said document was not admissible in evidence.

F The High Court, in revision, held that the reasons given by the trial
court for not exhibiting the document could not be sustained. However;the
High Court considered the document on its merits leaving aside the question
of its admissibility and held that the document was not a valid agreement
under the relevant provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 and dismissed the
G revision. Hence this appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The question for consideration before the revisional court
was confined to the admissibility of the document on the grounds raised by
H the plaintiff. The revisional court, after holding that the reasons given by the
1186
(

N.K. TULARA v. D.C. GUPTA [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.) 1187
trial court, for not exhibiting the document, could not be sustained, exceeded A
its jurisdiction in entering into the question of validity of the document on
"'<.
merits in the light of the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872. The order
of the High Court virtually decided the suit. It is beyond the scope of the
revision petition and suffers from patent illegality on the face of it causing
prejudice to the case of the defendant. [1188-G-H]
B
2. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the
case is remanded to the High Court for its decision afresh, in accordance
with law. [1189-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4499 of
2001. c
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2000 of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1270/2000.

Sushi! Kumar Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, A.P. Dharnija and Pradeep Agarwal
for the Appellant. D
Indra Makwana for the Respondents.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel fcv the
parties. E
The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal briefly are that one Ram
Sahay filed Civil Suit No. 31/93 in the Court of Civil Judge (A.B.) Gangapur
City (SM), praying for relief of declaration of ownership of Shop No.141 in
Bazar Katia and also for possession over the said shop. The plaintiff died
during the pendency of the proceedings and is being represented through his F
legal representatives as respondents in this appeal. The present appellant viz.
Nawal Kishore, defendant in the suit, resisted the claim of the plaintiff and
pleaded that the plaintiff Ram Sahay had entered into an agreement, with the
defendant, to sell Shop No.141 situate at Bazar Katia for a sum of Rs. 7,100
out of which a sum of Rs. 1, l 00. had been paid and the balance amount was
to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The said agreement
G
dated 17/19.8.1985 is in writing on a stamp ofRs.5. During the course of the
..,. examination-in-chief of the defendant (present appellant), the plaintiff objected
to 'exhibit' the document dated 17/19.8.1985, purported to be an agreement
to sell, on the ground, that the document was unregistered and insuffidently
stamped. The objection has been upheld by the trial court, by its order dated H
>.
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A 31. l 0.2000 holding that the document was not admissible in .evidence for any
purpose.

The appellant preferred a civil revision in the High Court, against the
aforesaid order of the trial court. It appears that a plea was raised. on behalf
of the petitioner-revisionist that ~e document in question was executed in the
B year 1985, whereas the amendment in the Indian Registration Act for
compulsory registration ·of agreements fo sell, in the State of Rajasthan, came
into force in the year 1989. The other plea raised is that an insufficiently
stamped document can very well be impounded under the provisions of the
Stamp Act.
c The revision was however rejected by the High Court observing as
follows:

. "Even though the reasons given by the trial court for not exhibiting
the document cannot be sustained but the perusal of the
document. ......... ".
D
The High Court thereafter goes on to consider the document on its merit
leaving aside the question of its admissibility any more and observed that
signatures of Ram Sahay are not admitted by the other side nor the document
bears the acceptance of the proposer therefore the contract could not be said
E to be a valid agreement under the relevant provisions of the Contract Act. •
Finally it is observed 'in such circumstances document is not an agreement,
as is being argued, now, in the eyes of law. No injustice has been done to
the petitioner by not admitting the said document"

A perusal of the order passed by the High Court and the discussion
F held clearly shows that the court had completely mis-directed itself in embarking
upon an enquiry into the validity of the document and ultimately, in holding
that the document, sought to be exhibited by the defendant could not be held
to be a valid agreement under the relevant provisions of the Contract Act.
As a matter of fact, the question for consideration before the revisional court
G was confined to the admissibility of the document on the grounds raised by
the plaintiff. The revisional court, after holding that the reasons given by the
trial court, for not exhibiting the document, could not be sustained, exceeded
its jurisdiction in entering into the question of validity of the document on
merits in the light of the provisions of the Contract Act. The order of the High
Court virtually decided the suit. It is beyond the scope of the revision petition
H and suffers from patent illegality on the face of it causing prejudice to the
N.K. TULARA v. D.C. GUPTA [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 1189
case of the defendant. A
" In view of the discussion held above, the impugned order passed by
the High Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for
its decision afresh, in accordance with law.

We' are informed that the trial court has now decided the suit and a first B
appeal is P,_ending. The order of the trial court on the suit and further
proceedings thereafter at any stage and orders passed thereon shall be
subject to the orders on the revision petition by the High Court.

Costs easy.
c
v.s.s. Appeal disposed of.