Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-05-2011
..... that the document was an exhibit in the case and had been used by the parties in examination and in cross-examination of the witnesses, section 36 of the stamp act did not come into operation. once a document had been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it was not open either to the trial court itself or to a court of ..... the plaintiff, many documents were filed and out of these documents, ex. 3 and 13 were the agreement to sale, which were not duly registered under the provisions of registration act. since the documents were not registered, hence they could not be admitted to evidence under the provisions of law. learned trial court allowed the plaintiff to mark the exhibits on ..... the petitioners also argued that if the documents are not tendered in the suit for specific performance of contract, then the proviso to section 49 of registration act does not hold good and the document is required to be registered under section 17 of registration act. learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by hon'ble apex court .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on : Mar-29-2011
1. by way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:(i) by issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 27.3.2006 (annexure-3) passed by respondent no. 6 municipal board, sambharlake and order dated 23.3.2007 (annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 7 additional divisional commissioner, jaipur be quashed and set-aside.(ii) any other appropriate relief which this hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. (iii) the cost of this writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.2. contextual facts of the case depict that the property situated at chhota bajar, sambharlake was entered in the name of khudabux. the respondents no. 1 and 2, who are the legal representatives of khudabux, submitted an application to the nagar palika, sambharlake for entering their name in place of khudabux. the petitioner filed the objections before the nagar palika, sambharlake. executive officer, nagar palika, sambharlake, directed the parties to get the right of ownership decided from civil court. thereafter sirajuddin deposited the house tax of the property-in-dispute with nagar palika, sambharlake, which was accepted by the executive officer. being aggrieved by the order of the executive officer, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the additional divisional commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.3.2007.3. heard learned counsel .....Tag this Judgment!