Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) In Durga Das v. Devi Das, this court Hon'ble Kan Singh, J. (as he then was) propounded as under: "No right, title or interest in the property could be conveyed by a document if it is not in accord with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the circumstances the document cannot be constnied to be a sale for the purposes of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, but would be only a contract for sale within its meaning." Placing reliance on the aforesaid authority, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and rejected the objection raised by the defendant in respect of a document dated July 13, 1987. Hence this revision.
(2.) Mr. N,K. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-petitioners (for short the defendants) canvassed that the court below has not taken into consideration the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) (Amendment) Act, 1989 (for short the Act). The document in question ought to have been construed as conveyance and it should have been properly stamped. Reliance was placed on Smt. Jamna Bai v. Tulsi Ram, Madan Mohan v. Gauri Shankdr; and Nihal Singh v. Singh Ram & Ors.,
(3.) On the other hand Sh. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for plaintiff-non- petitioner supported the impugned order and contended that no jurisdictional error was committed by the learned Court below,;