HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGRAWAL

ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2022

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 618 of 2021

Between:-

SMT. SONAL @ JANKI TOMAR, W/O SURENDRA SINGH TOMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION – HOUSE WIFE, R/O NEW POST OFFICE COLONY WARD NO.9, CHADAKYAPUDI, SEHORE, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEHORE (M.P.)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI ASHOK AGRAWAL – ADVOCATE)

AND

• 1. SMT. SWARN NARANG W/O SHRI NANDLAL NARANG, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O R/O ARERA COLONY BHOPAL TEH. HUZUR DISTT. BHOPAL (M.P.) THROUGH ITS POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER AAM JANI SONKAR, AGED 45 YRS S/O SHRI RAMDULARE SONKAR, R/O MURDI MOHALLA GANJ, SEHORE, TESHIL AND DISTRICT SEHORE (M.P.)
• 2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT SEHORE (M.P.)

.....RESPONDENTS

(SHRI L.C. CHOURASIYA – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SMT. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE – PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2-STATE)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This miscellaneous petition is filed by the defendant being aggrieved of order dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned 7th Civil Judge to Civil Judge, Class-II, Sehore (M.P.) in RCS(A)/121/2020, dismissing an application moved by the petitioner-defendant under the provisions of Schedule-I(A) Sub-Clause 50(?k) read with Section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Stamps Act'), whereby petitioner-defendant had sought a direction that the power of attorney issued by the plaintiff is neither properly registered nor stamped and, therefore, same be impounded and referred to the Registrar of Stamps, holding that provisions of the Stamps Act are not attracted because said power of attorney was executed only for the upkeep and safety of the property and not for sale, gift, transfer or permanent alienation of the property.

2. Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the power of attorney which was executed on 31.08.2020 as contained in Annexure P-3 to point out that Smt. Swarn Narang i.e. the plaintiff, had appointed one Jani Sonkar as his power of attorney, wherein authority was given to Shri Jani Sonkar to register saledeed in relation to the said property contained in survey No.327/1/1/1 measuring 1200 sq. feet, situated at Murli Ward No.09, Chankyapuri A-B, Sehore, District Sehore (M.P.) and this aspect has been over-looked by the learned trial Court.

3. A perusal of the power of attorney and the terms and conditions contained therein, leaves no iota of doubt that the power of attorney contains a stipulation in regard to entering into a sale transaction and registering the sale-deed, etc.

$4.$ Relevant portion of the power of attorney is reproduced hereinunder:-

"1. यह की मुख्तारआम श्री जानी सोनकर मुझ निष्पादक द्वारा उक्त विकित भूमि/भूखण्ड के निष्पादित/हस्ताक्षरित दस्तावेज विक्रय पत्र/विक्रय पत्रों का पंजीयन उप–पंजीयक कार्यालय सीहोर मे उपस्थित होकर अपने हस्ताक्षर से कराये. उप–पंजीयक कार्यालय सीहोर मे मेरी और से उपस्थित होकर दस्तावेज विक्रय पत्र उप-पंजीयक के समक्ष प्रस्तूत करे, बयान दे, हस्ताक्षर, अंगुठा करे, मेरी और से प्रतिफल प्राप्त कर स्वीकार करें या प्रतिफल प्राप्त कर मुझे सौंपे।

2. यह की मुख्तारआम श्री जानी सोनकर मुझ निष्पादक की और से मेरे द्वारा निष्पादित दस्तावेज विक्रय पत्र के पंजीयक हेतु उप-पंजीयक कार्यालय सीहोर में होने वाली समस्त कार्यवाही हमारी और से करे, अर्थात मेरे द्वारा निष्पादित दस्तावेज विक्रयपत्र / विक्रयपत्रों व संशोधन पत्र का पंजीयन हेत् आवश्यक समस्त कार्यवाही अपने हस्ताक्षर करें।

3. यह की मुख्तारआम द्वारा निष्पादित दस्तावेज विक्रयपत्र / विक्रयपत्रों के पंजीयन हेत की गई समस्त कार्यवाही ऐसी समझी / मानी जाऐगी जैसे सबको स्वयं उप–पंजीयक कार्यालय सीहोर मे उपस्थित होकर की है।"

$$ Thus, it is evident that trial Court has erred in reading the stipulations contained in the power of attorney and has wrongly mentioned that power of attorney was issued only for the purpose of upkeep and security of the property and not for executing sale, gift, transfer or permanent alienation. In fact it is admitted fact that the person to whom power of attorney was given, is not a member of the family and, therefore, stamp duty is to be paid as is payable on document envisaging transfer of the property.

Thus, impugned order passed by the learned 7^th Civil Judge to Civil 6. Judge, Class-II, Sehore is contrary to the law on the subject and has failed to understand the stipulations in the power of attorney, cannot be given a seal

of approval. Impugned order is thus set aside and the application filed by the petitioner is allowed.

7. Let the matter be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for proper adjudication on the aspect.

(VIVEK AGRAWAL) JUDGE

pp.