NAWAL KISHORE TULARA versus DINESH CHAND GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1186 · Decided: 25-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NA WAL KISHORE TULARA 
v. 
DINESH CHAND GUPTA AND ORS. 
JULY 25, 2001 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, Y._K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section 115-Revisiona/ Jurisdiction-Power and scope of High Court-
C Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and ownershit:r-Defendant pleaded that 
plaintiff entered into agreement with him to sell the suit property-Plaintiff 
objected to the document for want oj regiStration and sufficient stamp duty--
Trial court allowed ·the objection-However, High Court considered the 
document on its merits and held it not to be a valid agreement and dismissed · 
the revision-Correctness of-Held: High Court exceeded its revisional 
D jurisdiction in entering into the question of validity of the document on 
merits-Hence, matter remitted for decision afresh. 
The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for 
declaration of ownership, and also for possession, of the suit property. The 
E appellant-defendant contended that the respondent-plaintiff had entered into 
an agreement with him to sell the suit property But the respondent-plaintiff 
objected to "exhibit" the said document as it was unregistered and also 
insufficiently stamped. The trial court allowed the objection arid held that the 
said document was not admissible in evidence. 
F 
The High Court, in revision, held that the reasons given by the trial 
court for not exhibiting the document could not be sustained. However;the 
High Court considered the document on its merits leaving aside the question 
of its admissibility and held that the document was not a valid agreement 
under the relevant provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 and dismissed the 
G revision. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The question for consideration before the revisional court 
was confined to the admissibility of the document on the grounds raised by 
H the plaintiff. The revisional court, after holding that the reasons given by the 
1186 
( 
N.K. TULARA v. D.C. GUPTA [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.) 
1187 
trial court, for not exhibiting the document, could not be sustained, exceeded A 
"'<. 
its jurisdiction in entering into the question of validity of the document on 
merits in the light of the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872. The order 
of the High Court virtually decided the suit. It is beyond the scope of the 
revision petition and suffers from patent illegality on the face of it causing 
prejudice to the case of the defendant. [1188-G-H] 
B 
2. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the 
case is remanded to the High Court for its decision afresh, in accordance 
with law. [1189-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4499 of 
2001. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2000 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1270/2000. 
Sushi! Kumar Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, A.P. Dharnija and Pradeep Agarwal 
for the Appellant. 
D 
Indra Makwana for the Respondents. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel fcv the 
parties. 
E 
The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal briefly are that one Ram 
Sahay filed Civil Suit No. 31/93 in the Court of Civil Judge (A.B.) Gangapur 
City (SM), praying for relief of declaration of ownership of Shop No.141 in 
Bazar Katia and also for possession over the said shop. The plaintiff died 
during the pendency of the proceedings and is being represented through his F 
legal representatives as respondents in this appeal. The present appellant viz. 
Nawal Kishore, defendant in the suit, resisted the claim of the plaintiff and 
pleaded that the plaintiff Ram Sahay had entered into an agreement, with the 
defendant, to sell Shop No.141 situate at Bazar Katia for a sum of Rs. 7,100 
out of which a sum of Rs. 1, l 00. had been paid and the balance amount was G 
to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The said agreement 
dated 17/19.8.1985 is in writing on a stamp ofRs.5. During the course of the 
..,. 
examination-in-chief of the defendant (present appellant), the plaintiff objected 
to 'exhibit' the document dated 17/19.8.1985, purported to be an agreement 
to sell, on the ground, that the document was unregistered and insuffidently 
stamped. The objection has been upheld by the trial court, by its order dated H 
1188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A 31. l 0.2000 holding that the document was not admissible in .

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.