MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS. Vs. SAMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On January 12, 1966, an agreement was entered into between Bir Singh vendor and Ajit Singh vendee, whereby the former agreed to sell certain part of his land to the latter. The vendee advanced Rs. 1,000 as part of the price of the land, the recital in the agreement, marked D.A. being that Bir Singh vendor had acknowledged receipt of Rs. 1,000 towards the price of the land before the Panchayat. The other term of the document was that if Bir Singh failed to perform the contract, he was not only to refund Rs. 1,000 received by him but also to pay another sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages for breach of contract and, on the other hand, if the vendee did not perform the contract, he was to forfeit the amount of Rs. 1,000 given by him to the vendor. This document was executed by the parties and attested by one witness, but it is unstamped. Subsequently; pursuant to this document D.A. a sale-deed of the land was executed by Bir Singh vendor in favour of Buta Singh, son of Ajit Singh and one Hari Singh. The sale-deed was registered.

(2.) One Samir Singh then brought a suit to pre-empt the sale, to which the vendees Hari Singh and Buta Singh are party Defendants. During the trial of the suit, Ajit Singh, the original party to the document D.A. was examined as D.W.

(3.) He stated that the sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid to Bir Singh vendor as advance at the time of striking the bargain, and Bir Singh had undertaken to pay the vendees a stipulated amount of Rs. 2,000, Rs. 1,000 being the advance money and Rs. 1,000 as damages for non-performance of the contract. The vendees wanted by the document D.A. to prove payment of Rs. 1,000 to the vendor. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that this document D.A. is a bond and not an agreement and so it was liable to payment of stamp duty and penalty as a bond under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act 2 of 1899). It is against the order of the trial Court in this respect that the vendees have filed this revision application. Nobody appears, in spite of service of notice, to oppose it from the side of the Plaintiff.