Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dt. 10.12.2014 passed by the trial Court, wherein, a objection was raised by the defendant that the document sought to be exhibited by the petitioner i.e. the sale deed dt. 05.12.2007 executed between Dev Ram, respondent No. 2 and Kamlesh, petitioner, registered with Sub Registrar, Nathdwara, District - Rajsamand was insufficiently stamped. It was, inter alia, observed in the impugned order that the petitioner had not disclosed the true facts affecting the determination of the stamp duty and in view of the fact that the valuation of the property affected by the sale deed dt. 05.12.2007 was Rs. 7,50,000/ -, but the document was executed for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/ -, the same was undervalued and was, consequently, inadmissible in evidence.
(2.) AFTER hearing the parties, the trial Court was prima facie of the opinion that the document was undervalued and directed as under: - - It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court was not justified in passing the order dt. 10.12.2014, inasmuch as, the document i.e. the sale deed dt. 05.12.2007 was registered document and the stamp duty was properly paid and, thereafter only the document was registered by the Sub Registrar and it cannot be said that the petitioner has paid insufficient stamp duty and/or the document was undervalued as alleged. It was further submitted that in any case the trial Court could not have directed payment of stamp duty and penalty as under provisions of Section 51 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 ('the Act'), it is the Collector (Stamps), who can determine the deficient stamp duty and/or the extent of under valuation, if any.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.;