1 2025:CGHC:3647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 387 of 2024 1. Ramakant Sharma S/o Late Jawahar Lal Sharma, Aged About 35 Years (Now 45 Years) R/o Opposite Muslim Saray Imlipara Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Shail Sharma Wd/o Late Jawahar Sharma, Aged About 60 Years R/o Opposite Muslim Saray Imlipara Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Smt. Kumud Sharma W/o Shri Prafull Sharma, Aged About 43 Years R/o Awanti Vihar, Housing Board Colony, Shankar Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Smt. Shandhya Sharma W/o Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Aged About 41 Years R/o Mohba Bazar Near Dumar Talab, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Smt. Bharti Sharma W/o Sunil Sharma, Aged About 39 Years R/o Awanti Vihar Housing Board Colony, Shankar Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6. Smt. Madhu Sharma W/o Shiv Sharma, Aged About 37 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Park Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 7. Miss Suman Sharma D/o Late Jawahar Lal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Ghutarkundi, P.S. And Tahsil Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) -----(All Are Defendants) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---(Defendant) 2. Smt. Mankumari W/o Late Ved Prasad Pandey, Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Ghutarkundi, P.S. And Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Raju Mishra S/o Shatrughan Mishra Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. Mig- B-27, Ring Road No.2, Chandela Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Mobile No. 9826237497) ------(Plaintiff) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 21/01/2025 1) The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition challenging the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by VIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 28-A/2017 whereby the application filed under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for declaration and injunction. He further submits that the defendants/petitioners produced two documents, namely, (i) relinquishment deed executed by the plaintiff in favor of defendant No. 1 and (ii) a family settlement dated 25.01.2007. He contends that both documents are not registered according to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, therefore, an application under Section 33 of the Act, 1899 was moved for impounding these documents but the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that documents are fabricated and the application was not filed according to Section 40 of the Act, 1899. He prays to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and allow the application. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/ plaintiff submits that there was no requirement to make prayer for impounding documents relating to the family settlement. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in 2023 SCCOnLine SC 1585. He contends that the plaintiff is 3 not a party to the relinquishment deed, which is not a registered document and for that document, the application was not allowed by the learned trial Court. 4) Learned State counsel submits that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 1. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Admittedly, the petitioners/defendants moved an application under Section 33 of the Act, 1899 for impounding two documents which are (i) relinquishment deed and (ii) family settlement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the requirements of impounding a document like family settlement in the matter of Vijay (supra) has held that if the documents sought to be admitted are not chargeable with duty, there would be no requirement of impounding such document. Relevant paras 28 and 29 of the aforementioned judgment are reproduced herein below:- 28. The object of the Stamp Act is to collect proper stamp duty on an instrument or conveyance on which such stamp duty is payable. Section 35 is a provision to cater for the instruments not being properly stamped and, as such, not being admissible in evidence. A document not duly stamped cannot be admitted for any purposes. To impose the bar of admissibility provided under this section, the following twin conditions are required to be fulfilled: (i) Instrument must be chargeable with duty; (ii) It is not duly stamped. 29. If the documents sought to be admitted are not chargeable with duty, Section 35 has no application. Thus, in the present case, since the document was dated 04.02.1988, the instrument was not chargeable with duty. It follows therefrom that when such document(s) are not required to be stamped, then no bar 4 could be imposed due to it being not duly stamped. 7) With regard to the relinquishment deed executed by the plaintiff in favor of defendant No. 1, it is not a registered document; therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have considered the application according to provisions of Section 33 of the Act, 1899. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 22.04.2024 is hereby quashed. There is no need to impound family settlement and with regard to relinquishment deed, the petitioners would be at liberty to move a fresh application before the Court below. Further, the learned trial Court is directed to decide such application, if moved by the petitioners/defendants strictly in accordance with provisions of Section 33 of the Act, 1899. 9) Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya