Sri K Dinesh vs Sri Kumaraswany And Others on 30 August, 2010

[Cites 29, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Dinesh vs Sri Kumaraswany And Others on 30 August, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 
BANGALORE ~-&gO

 

DATED THIS THE SOWDAY Of? AUGU'-SET, 2010  H     

BEFOR.L'_: "

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANO B.Y--R.A Ri€Iv)'§)AY 

WRIT PETITION NO.  2009 
WRIT PETITIOIv\I..N.O_.::V1fGM~--CPC),
WRIT   1% Oiizobs (GM--CPC),
xzs/1%21'1**H   2009 (GM--CPC),

WRIT  OF 2009(GM«--CPC)

IN W.P._ N(4'§}iz:i2V8'{)F. }';'0(.):9 (GM-CPC)

 'E§E'?W£§Ei I 

smj_O:<. puma.
Aged abOut"29 years,

« --. .. _j;.  HS/O Srf. .,Ku:z1araswa1ny.
' '   (}'.'2,56, 2"" Stage,



Ex.)

G2'1ya2thripu1':1n1,

N£17,£11'b{1d._
Mysore --~ 570 019.

('By Shri. Y.K. Narayanu Sharma, AVdMyvQca1te)_"""* 

AND:

!\J

Shri. Kun1aeras\>vz1z'ny.
Aged aboui 58 yegim,

S/0 Late Sivara:'11.ai'£;--h _
N0256, 2" Stage,' V 
Gayathri_pu_ra,   _  '
Mys0:'c_',--~5_7_{) U19. _ V
Sri.  s::;I;i'sha '    T

Aged    y'::_éi'rs__. V' "

[S/0 S'ri~..fK_u 1ni1ré1:;.w2u1_hy. --

 N0.--256..   

Gayaitluripuxéi,-.:V' 2

My.§o_1:e -.-- 570 

"  Suit _S uva1:'r12:v- ..... M <

Aged 2'-rb._0u£ 32 _vca1'.s',

 'V  _ D./_(5"S i*é Klilmalmwalzny,
 A N<i§'2,56;~.2'"'l Stage,

Gv2)yé1iIj}ripL:ra,

 Mysofe -- 570 019.

 Mr. Pr<~:ma Kumar.
 Maj(_)r,

S/0 Late L. Nanjundaiah,
No. l 7] 9, 8"' Cmss,

8

..PET1*§":{)'i§:%::~:Jji. .



I(ya1tl1amzu'anah3I] i.
N:;':za:'bad,
Mysore M 570 0 I 9.

5. Smt. M.P. SLiI'31£'l{l"1i_.
Majm'.
N0. 1719. 8"' Cross,
Kyathamzuanahz-xiii.
Nazurbad.

M'yso1'c--57(')0l9.    ;,VR6E:SF€Q'NDENTS"66

(B y Shri. T.N. R;1ghLrpuI.i1y, AcVi6w'~<>c.é";t':'f'(;1r_ Res6(')n--de.r1f N04 and
5, Shri. R. Omkumar. }'..<Jq«itio1jal §Gg)V's:_n'11*n€tnt Advocate)

This; Wi*_i~t_Fet'i'_;_i6r1'-.;5._ fi~1e__d' 'uﬁdear. '/Xnicles 226 and 227 of
{he C()11stitu.:i(m5,9!' l:§dia6"vp;=aAyAingfto quash the order dated
iI.12.26008"6.p§:$SeCTf91é.i:"1'6'i;.A'.N0.1._'4'"'fi1 0.5.464 of 2000 by the
C0urt7.Qft'11e S'f._DVi1), Mysore, as per Annexure--H
and etc}, «.     

 - & 9.61 902 : c)F«2(1<:9 (GM-CPC)

. "N

I ;  6 Dr. AP;-u't11asa1'z-1ihy.
" S'-./A0  Ramachm',
'A_g'e:d about 76 years,

 Smt. B.S. Vijayaprabha

W/0 Dr. A. Parthcasuraihy,
Aged aboui 66 years.

5



Both are residing at No. E()l~C,
"Sara-tthy Apartments".

KT 28, 8"' Main, 13"' Cross,
Malieswaram,

Bangalore -~ 560 003. . .2  

(By Shri. M. G. Ramakrishnaiah,     ° '  V

AND:

D1'.  Lakshmipathy Bézbyu,
S/0 N-arasimhaiah, " 

Aged about 58 years, V

Residing at N0.2a12, IsiCrtiss;;;iA _  2  2

If Block, 111 Sta;;;e,_'.'i3£1nash:tn~1{2u'i';  

Banga1t).re_e«~"56{_)  " _:     . ...RESPONDENT

( B y Shti. Aclivdeate f0i:Cz1veator/Respondent)

Veeeee

Thisvwrit VPeI\tt:i<_)it'«i.s5i' filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the C{'321SIiIi1Ei(}'31_vQ'fVII](1i'.1, praying to quash the impugned orders
(.>t%{_I':A;i.._un.der Secti--e--isi"33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act,

 pa_'s'sed"oy4t"rtev XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
 VB-va.iig;,1'tt>1je..C'.iyty'--..(CCH.No.8) in O.S.No.999 of 2006 dated
" .10.-6y.«2()O9_"_ii._enn,ex1n'e-A and etc:..



6

BM. Road, 
Hasszm. ...RESPONDEvNT_S= 

(By Shri. R. Shivachamdra Naik. Advocate for 
Adx--'ocate for Rt'3Sp()1]Li(;'11t No.1 and Shri.  .Ovmk!11i1:a_1', 

Addilimiul Government Advocate) 

:£::§::§::{<:§< 

This Wi'i£ Petition is i'iIi3d_ undie'rA':rtiCIe.si.2i--2.6i:1iid i2.27i c)fg
the Constitution of India. pi';1.y'i'ag t<)°qu3shV th_e"'..r_)"1*ciei"'dated"

]5.07.2()()8 passed by the Civil ih:dge_ (Sr.iDn)_i,'iH()ieis;arasipura,
ztjectiiig i.A.N0.4 in O.S...No.23-Sf2.Q{)2'at_Anneixu--rie-V-AG and etc.,

In W.P. 18297 ()F_'2()()9 (GM}'C}'i'C_i.i'_   

BETWEEN;   " 

S ii. 8 i As \»» iLs'i'i1;f«',-3 21:1 1".ii_.\;':ii 1 2:1 'G.a_.>wc_iz15
S/0 Lam-E: B'£'tiS;ip[fi¢il',i:i:"x,_ii   '
Aged a-1b<')i.V:£'?lA7 ye.a1'$;.i'-- _i  "
Resid ing an '-Papv;iiiah__aIii.iV \/'«i.}~i:1ge,
Ch;1:j1n'a1iayap:11"ngi Hub 1 i .'

 v  _ D€.$:'j';¢iii~I1£1_b_i1fAc'li}.i" '['aILik,'  ----- ~ "
V F3v21'i1g;1}_i'):'.e;f Rliffiii District -- 562 110. ...PETIT'IONER

 (5 Gowda. Advocate)

i 'Siin-I...S1:ja1h:1mm;1,

V://0 Bz.1s21vcg<'>\/vdza.

 ~*v-.i'xg.;eci uimizt 44 _yeu1's.



y'...

A N D:

f~J

Eu

Shri. P. Venkztieshan
S/0 Sri. Poun Ruju lu.
Aged aboua SE ycauts'.

Smi. H. Shiv:-mi Shctty,

W/0 Shri. H. Vecrara_j Shetty.
Aged about 42 _\roz.1:'s._  

Shri. H. Veexmaj Shetty, __ 
S/0 Shri. H. Chandra-a3he*ka':f§1 Sheiiy, V
Aged about 5! yea-1rs._  

Smt. TA. A;_naicJi:'payi  .. .
W/0 Shri. P. Venkatesh:m_?  A}
Aged about 51 ye;y:f,s,"  V' '

AH;m§v:'esidTE:1g_;1t  _  _
No.7» Ku\~'--cri .l.éi3°é§"u§;~    * '
Sucicia;.;L:r;1e'i'>;1iya,_A' 4'  
Darma rzmi 0 31:: gt: . P03 1'". v 

Bz1n;3;'ar~!:,)A1'e -- 56() U2'9.

..RESPONDENTS

 {   :3%€ib.l)E1k£t1' L. Shetty, Advocate)



9
These Writ Petitions are fiied under Articles 226 and 227
ofthe Constitution of India praying to C5111 for Records and etc.,

These petitions having been heard and reserved on
15.07.2010, 23.07.2010 and 04.08.2010 and coming on for
pronouncement of orders this day, the Court delivered the
following:-- it "

ORDER

These petitions are heard together as _co'r'nrr:1on1i"questions'V. of law arise for consideration.

2. The brief facts in each-ease are_ stateduherezindeiﬂgl WP 1428/2009: The petiti(3nei'_i;si"t-hie piaiiiti'fE«--ini_.ia pending civii suit in~OS the f'i1e"'of- the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senioij Diviisioin); The suit is for partition and separate po'sVse'ssior:= house, which is the suit property. It is v . c1aiiiie5s:i'.t(>"i-be a };1iridiijoint--fa:n.i1y property of the parties. The ide-fendiantisi; i'espro11dents 4 and 5 herein, claimed that the suit property 'i1.as' been agreed to be soid under an agreement of saie A.dat_ed 2'"1--11~E999, executed in their favour by respondent no.1 7herei_n. it was a1so ciairned that an advance amount had been 1 "received towards the totzzi saie consideration of Rs.8.50 Iakh 8 E0 and that the said respondents 4 and 5 had been put in possession of the suit property, under the agreement of sale. Incidentally, respondents 4 and 5 are said to have instittited a separate suit for specific performance of th_e""'aboV___e5said agreement, in suit bearing No.08 53>}./2000-- court. The said suits are being tried-together. "

The plaintiff in os 5;3ii1y;'e2o00,li exaiziliinecloas-5PW4ii' and the agreement of sale, above referrepd was marked as EXP-

1. The petitioner himself haslheien ei{ai_r1ion"e~d as a witness and has been confronted i;wit_,h_:'the._idocuprneintii in respect of the si gnatu res of res poyndeyntt. no.---- _I there in. Th'e,_petitio"ner*had_li-led an application invoking, Sections ol°'t*heV____Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (Hereinafter ' ,rie'ferredl'to:a_si"the 'KS Act', for brevity), to contend that the said iagreementiisltjjfiesale attracted stamp duty prescribed under Article 5(l)(e)lof theiSchedule to the KS Act. As the document was Vnotllsufficiently stamped, the petitioner requested the trial court is impound the document and to collect duty and penalty from 5 WW i I respondents 4 and 5. The application was heard at length and rejected by the trial court, on the ground that no objection had been raised at the time the document was produced anciinmarked in evidence and therefore it was not possible to e_n'c]uire ._i__i§t}.l§__lif'i€ question of adequacy of stamp duty paid oaths 'doc«u11:ent;,. 9 for purposes of addressing its adm.i._ssib'i}i.I:--y in evi'den'ce;.__ Ttiat order is sought to be questi()n'e_d"in the above pet_itio_n.;--v WP 19021/2009 ; pel'_it.iQ.tte1's._V_avteathe defendants in a pending civii suit. TheA..s,uii_t'--.ish'iVfoij stieciivfiiievv-performance of an byimthieﬂ respondent herein, in OS 999/2(x)'O6V o~f:t'}"ae'*'City Civil Judge, Bangaiore. The petitioners hadpcontended that the agreement was a fabricated the other hand, they contended that the suit subject matter of a joint development agi'een'ient'"neutered into by the petitioners with a property 2 ii developer who had been put in possession of the property two fyears prior to the agreement of sale. At the trial, during the 8 course of the cross--examination of the plaintiff, respondent herein, was said to have been confronted with theHsa.i_d'ejoirit development agreement, the Counsel for the plaintiff an objection as to the £kdmiSSibiii{'_'.{Am()'f the"dO'eii'rn,ei1t on ground the same was not duly s1"arriped§_"'ii7lie sa_rr§eWas inariied as an exhibit, subject to the E3';;}li"Ll;..v_0l)_jfi.(i3'[lV(')I1'. _T'i1ere.af'ter,"lon and application by the respondent,requie'stli'I'1»g the lC'ovur'{.»t'o impound the document and to c0llelei_'(ii:it~yVlliarid the same, from the petiti0ne1js,"a.n'c_l. the appl'ieatio'nljhaiiinfgbeen al_lowed , the present peiition is "filed chgmértgitisag the same. WP i1f)44i'/'03 is the second defendant, in a pending mi: §1"m;,° 9,35/2002, before the Court of the CM: Jtidge (Seh'i0'If.__DiVision) , Holenarsipur. The suit is for L. V rspe::i_f"iC.»l'pe'rfor--:fnance of an agreement of sale, of the suit lproperty,ld/\{_ttiithe trial the said agreement of sale was produced and riiarlxed as an exhibit by the plaintiff. At the relevant point i' of there was no objection to the document being marked. 5 E3 However, an application haviiig been filed at a later point of time, calling upon the trial court to impound the document, on the ground that the defendants had taken a specific plea in their written Statement that the agreement of sale in questioVn,iewias not duly stamped and was liable to be impounded'"ia'rid__i notwithstanding the fact that tliere__was__ no _objectii'_e.nii";~gisec§.i,"

the time the document was a1dmitted«'an-idimarkediasl an the trial court has rejected the -ap_ii;:i>'l.i_cati().ri ont.he'~.grou'n'd"that the" V document once having. beet11"'~aid--mi"tted, the-A question 01 admissibility could not be reopened. questioned herein. WP is the plaintiff before the trial court in alpendvingi suit._forz_is'pecific performance of an agreement of*:siaIeE,__iii1i suitibe'ari.ng.i1o.OS 769/2006 , before the Court of the V .Civi_ §1,idge'(Senior Division), Devanahalli. At the trial, the agreement ebftilsale was produced, lldmitted and marked as an exhibit without any objection. However, at a later point of when the case was set down for the cross--exam.ination ol 3 l5 trial court has directed the petitioner to pay duty and penalty and has rejected the prayer of the petitioner. _It is that order which is under challenge.

3. Heard the learned counsel a eari 2 for' the ai'ties, V' ., P _ namely, Shri ' ' M.(l.Ramal<rishnaiah, S1nt.Ujw_ala, 'S-hri=N.Sonn¥:. i:Cv}()i«vdia,.i'Shri'e -' Veerabhadraiah. ,_ A $7 The learned Governifneiit-..3id'vocate,l.,vi/as directed to take

4. ':._The 'pttinitsfthat ai'ise"'ft)ii consideration are :

a) Wlienpia.,docuirri:ent»:yi?'hlich is chargeable with duty, under lithe Ka1'natal{a Stamp Act, l957, but not duly stamped, . adrnitted in evidence by a court, without any * :obj:ection:i_i3eing raised, is the court obliged to act upon it foriailll 'purposes the1'e:,-after, without the requirement of i ,. of duty and penalty? As for instance, can the court direct the execution of a sale deed in specific 5 In performance of an z1g1'eeme1it of sale, when the agreement is not duly stamped'?

b) Whether a document not duly stamped can be 21dnii't,ted in evidence on the plea that it is sought to be pi~<:fdu¢¢a"a.nd marked for a collateral purpose'?

C) Whether a plea in the W1"itten-Starternent o_fiithe'4defen'daii:.t, W as to a document not being du'ly1stamped, "was to preclude the trial court 'from admli'ttiVng1tihegdocurrient in * evidence , though no tihjection wasditaken'; when the document was actually ;.r('l:ni'tte:d and marked in evidence'?

d) Whether a docn'n"ient.sV '1'io;t..~ldu1y stamped is preseiiitedalong}:-:w'ith'th-e pla_'i'nt' or when at a stage before the «to he tendered and marked in e_vi_de ncef eouidi .fthe'coui't proceed to impound the document?

irslthe proicedure to be followed '?

questions arise in the back--drop of the facts of the iabove'c:ase:s. As seen in the first of the cases, a document havingvbieen admitted in evidence without there being any V' owhieietion raised, and the subs uent a Iication callin u on _ ;, - u. pp g p E7 the trial court to address the question regarding payment of duty and penalty, being rejected- it becomes necessary to examine whether any such power stands terminated on the admission of the document, for all purposes in adjudication of the

5. In the second of the above petitions,":the,ip'etitioii'eii-4, who seeks to contend that the dticunrent in q-:uestioin,'4nairnely,i'-.a ' joint development agreement, was soughtiito be p1'odu.ce:f'foi"':i collateral puipose and was notliidvocumenty betw_eein,the parties' to the suit, though it related triiiiitheisiiiittrproperty, requires this Courtvttioiiiexaﬁiinei"it./'iietiieprthe lawlnakes any distinction as to the purpose forwhVich_la"d:oeun1ent is produced, if that document was not duly stainpedﬂ In.t_he the above petitions, the petitioner had the agreement in question was not duly stan"1pe.d'in"tihe written statement, but did not object when the rdoeunient was actually produced and marked. Therefore, the iiquiesition arises whether the Court is bound to consider the T':

lli objection even at a later point of time after the document is admitted in evidence.

7. in the fourth of the above petitions, the do"ea1n.ent having been marked without any ()bjection,qV....but:'on "an 1 application by the defendant at a late1' dither' document having been impounded, thelqlquestioin=wi:ethei:_th'e court was justified in a"0VVlFIVg.'_'the a'ppllicatiori"'on.the grriusad'.

that it was only the question ()i!".§dl1]l'SSiblliI:y_ that inay not be re--opened and that the«-.i"Cou_r{ git'; the same would requirellduryaind be "paid is a larger question, which requires. co'nsideifat'ion_.li _ _8. inl"t~hel'1"ii'.'t.li:- of*the" above petitions, the trial court calling upon the pl.aintiffl"tolllpay duty and penalty on the document lwhilcli notlduly stamped, even at the stage of framing of isS'ues,,___whe.n the document was not sought to be marked in evi_denc'e whether is in accordance with law, would arise for consideration. 3 19

9. Before proceeding to address the case law that is relied upon by the counsel for the parties, to support their respective contentions, it is useful to refer to the ianguage'»of the relevant Sections under the KS Act as the sexqerai-.ideci'siorisp cited at the bar deai with Sections found-"in.__{;o1fre»sponding=s'V statutes relating to stamp duty wliich may irnaiy-.n'ot he"cti.i1'pr.t:*i' mareria.

"Section 33: _.E?£iI'iItifl'ﬂIvi{)[} and -- .ir_npVou5nding of instruments; 1") Ex-:_ei'y,.per':-;on,_ having by law or consent of parties tt.u1hoif'it'y7to_.~.recc.iye 'evidence, and every p_erso_ii in:~'charge, of A't'1.:'1.1Vl_,Ii')iiC 'goffice, except an c'hurgea'bicifi.nVihivs"o_p'i;iio1i. with duty. is produced or comes invthe' .Vpc'1'f(-')"i-'l_m'i1}CE: of his functions, shall, if it appiears to-hiirn thatiisuch instrument is not duly stamped, V impound 't'he._s:.1.na'e.

'VV._t.2}44Vi'For':.that purpose every such person shafl examine Vie*}'ei')r:}=instrument so eiiatigetibie and so produced or V-ficoniing before him, in order to ascertain whether it is z stainped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in the State of Kt-irnalaitat when such instrument was executed or first executed: 6

(a) any such instrument not being an instrutncnt chargeable (with a duty not exceeding fifteen nayc..paise--)_ only, or a mortgage of crop (Article (35)(zji')""(sf..'_'i~tie_". ;_.

Schedule) chargeable under clauses (a) of Section 3 with a duty of twenty--five naye paise zsjhallqsuhjecfr to', all just exceptions, he admitted in :_'evidence. on p'aytiie'ti--t of the duty with which the sanieis chargeable; er' in the if case of an instrument 'i-nsiIfficiently.. .stamp'edl.:';tiVf"the amount required to mzlke_u_p:'su_ch__duty,.toget_her_iNith a penalty of five whein"teiiyViAtimes the amount of the proper duty or dalicié:tiivr't';;t5rt:_o.n'~:.ig¢:éo'r exceeds five rupees, o'f'a_sum ;~e.'cjlulal't:i: ten 't.iines .=;'V.~1ch(d'uty or portion;

(ix) "wii4erev~:i'cont:fac--t'__or~~_:igi'eeni_ezzt.of any kind is effected C~QVrrcs1t:_{)ndence cons'i:;.t__i_ng oi' two or more letters and any oiie'vofvtheplet4t_crs.hea.rs_'the proper stamp, the contract or«agreeinenfshalthe'deemed to be duly stamped; t,(c) noih_inlgf herein contained shall prevent the admission "'t'.of'"any instriinient in evidence in any proceeding in a 1 Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter 'o_r"£Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal l'roe'edui'e, l898;

V (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on hehalf of the Government. or where it bears the certificate of the ("Deputy .5 23 the duty and penalty {if any) Eeviable in respect of any instrument have been paid under section 34, Section 39 or Section 40, the person admitting such (Deputy instrument in evidence or the Comanissioner), as the case may be, shaff certil'yV--ty endorsement thereon that the proper duty or, case may be, the proper duty and penalty (_s.fa'ti.ng_the_". ;_. amount of each) have been levied in respect thereof and the name and 1"eside1.1ce" of the-'_ person ..paying_f, them. 4 V p (2) Every inst:'umei1t so endorsed sh;i,,_l}".'Aereupoi};; be admissible in evidenee;.pand acted upon and ztt1then_t_icat;ed'as if it duly stamped, and_4_shall deE.iy'e:ed.VVon.h_is application in this behalf to the 'person5lfro.nniV'x{t_hose"_.possession it i' 'caizne into' th_e'hands of the officer impounding it, or i' sttcll"p.ersonl':nay direct.

it-'r.ovicled thar..--

(a) "'no~-«instioinent which has been admitted in evidence upon payment of duty and a penalty under Section 34, 'shall be so delivered before the expiration of one month ﬁ"o:n the date of such impounding, or if the (Deputy Coinntissiotter) has certified that its further detention is necessary and has not cancelled such certiﬁcate:

(b) nothing in this section shall effect order XIII, Rule 9 oi' the First Schedule to the Code-'off Civit Procedure, 1908.

Further the stamp duty attracted, in ail the is in respect of agreements covered under 'A1'ti.c1e_"5(e)i'0f the Schedule to the KS Act, which» Ifeztdsdasp ifoilowsy 2 Description of I'nstrurnent'~. _ to ?roper Stamp Duty Iii.)

(e) if relating to;._s'a1e of gi11-u'uo'vat5'1e"--s. ____ H property wgtteteiny 1'pa;?':_ pe1ijto_r1"n.ai1'ee tit' 1, ' the contrztcvt :0' 0 V 0

(i) as 21 (No.20) on the market value of Same duty :.Possessi'on syoif,they°p1'op_er'ty is V x ' conveyance de}.ivered-- or a.g_rced..--~ to be deI.iyet'edv. without iiexeeuting the _ * V V. the property.

conveyance. p of the property is not (3) iiwiltere viéiiue of the property to

(i) a:;es".{ot exceed rupees 5000 .. «. ' Ten rupees exeeeds rupees 5000 but does not _' Twenty rupees exceed rupees 20,000 tiii) exceeds rupees 20,000 but does one hundred rupees ./7 O

(iv)

(b) where not exceed rupees 5U,()()() exceeds rupees 5(),UU{) such agreement 01' memorandum of an agreement does not relate to monetary traiiszactiods Two hundred rupees Fifty rupees or transactions not suseeptibie to valuation in terms of money} are brieﬂy referred to iH"'E31'i.i€'l.' to_keep"V_ina"viie;w the Law as laid down thei'ein.'--.oniseyjerai«aspects_«-touching upon the very issues, that hayeiiibeeiii by the apex court and the various The several decisioirrsy c;ited1--_hy"t.he.t ieouﬁel for the parties High tits. V In JqveriiiC'hc_zf1(f'i'an.ri or/tars, us. Pukl/zraj Sumna, AIR 1961 triailicoiurt had held that they were. In appeal the High 8 jithe substantial question for determination was w'i5;ethe1',.iitw_orhuhdis sued upon were admissible in evidence. court however, found that though the hundis were marked as 'exhibits , the High Court took the View that at the time when 26 the hundis were executed, they were subject to the Marwar Stamp Act of 1914 which was in force. Under the provisions oi that Act, the court could realize the duty and penalty 'att'racted and admit the document in evidence. It was ho_w"eVer;_' by the High Court that, when the suit was .fi'1ed--:a '-Stzanip Act had come into force. amending-,the_y"Act oi»'._l9llZl. lllllitetlrtiéw law was similar to the Iiidviétn Stamp .ACll,VA'\:YltGvr€bly the' documents could not be. §t(l1'I1ll[VAt'-C} :irt«eVi.dence; 'ev.en,dn payment of duty and penalty and he'tice._he'Ed documents were inadmissible H.ilgh'_cou'rtl'ja]so held that Section 36 ofhtthe--_Startil*p."Actt clotlild-._t1ot' be pressed into service, as the admissioiipi' thelld.ocu.r_rteyn_ts a "mistake" committed by the and th'erefo_re required to be corrected.

_ The court with reference to Section 36 of the Stamp lztgtiltcqttgstptsindtng to Section 35 of the KS Act held that the High"coiirt was in error. Section 36 was follows:

" Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence , such admission shall not except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or Z proceeding on the ground that the insu-ument has not been duly stamped.

The fourjudge bench of the Supreme V "The se.cti0n is eateg0t'ic"al in its terms wltettvi doetm-tent has been ctcimit'teti"" t'-:1. ' e*{{'t'c1e_t;ith'c':ie*,i:. admi.s'Sir)rt crarmot be cttiieti in :(."["'I/IC'tSf:f".i,"()t3"?.':v aI':(tt1_Y' \g'?t»?.fA the suit or the [?t'()('t£'('(it't?-g. an V1'.t'»'r'.l"£"V'((ft'()Lt.'jE'(lF' the . instrument had not i9ec)tt'V"i'«'[i./'i't'.§' .Y[ClI141'f3'4'.Q:'.V'> r)hl}' exception i"ec'()gt1i:'e.gi by ['['.'E'm;5€";:It:f'ii;Z'V"i§'. the efci.s'.s' qft'ct.s'e.s' Ctmtemplcttecl I9)' .s'e'c':t'()32 _ i.$'V:i't2tV).txntaiterictl to the present' ctmtmve r.$'y.,. («§»ti()t'3 'ctdtnit of other exc'eptic2't15"."e;e , ,i'V!t(2ft2 (ti(}iFe.S'ft.t)t'1.(t'.<:'t712'..l.[3lt€' admi.sxs'ihih'ty of ti dOe'lti':'?_6f1i'"t;3§_. tr'_Ctii;.(:'V(t"-t)t'I[_\"t':3!te.I1:"e gmtmd that it l1(,'£).S' not 'beet: --ts'tt1i7i;.:c'tt[,iV'r;vt' t7ta_.s3';t()t' been properly stcimpeci it has to' .,/be Cieet't1_éa'--jheii --._§Iitzf'" there when the d0cum.eht is __1'erzdei'edV' in.Ve1«'id:€titi"e. Once the Court, rt}9htZ_'t' or wmttgly', cie'cir1e_.5j .30 admit the deem-nent in evidence, so LES".iI}'r~I'€ parties are (.*()m.'emec/ , the matter is c'l0.s'ed. 1 V:\Se:'E,r«'.:I?V0:.f'IV'V.:),¢5'Vnits' in the rtatitre nfa penal pmVisir)Iz (ind has fftf rtecgcitirtg eﬁ'ec't,s' . Ptirt'ie.s' to at litigation , when such .. ci'.<.j0i1tr0ver.s'y is raised, have to be cir<:'um.s'peet and the pﬂctrty Cha!lengt'ng the ttcltttiwibiiity ofthe doettment has to be alert to see that the docrttment is not admitted in €Vid£'l'1('€ by the ('()t.H'I' . The Court t'zct.5' to judicfiaiiy Q determine the matter ax xorm. as the docttment is tendered in ev£dem.*e mad bef0r'e it is marked cI.\'V.5:t_1 exhibit in the ease. The rewrcl in this case di.$c,*lr).xte;s< fact that the izunclis were marked as Exs. PI ct11?LI..P2'b is bore the ena.'0rSetm>r--tt 'a(hm'ttecl in e1*ider'te£a.'V Signature of the Court. It is" my/ti Mthe't-'cjfQre& ,().31e:AbQf7_tt'1bSe7 ea.s'e.s' where (1 dneun-rent ltiit,s' it act:-m't'ted, without the c'.)tu?I__V(1,'),')i_\;in;§ its' »t0__tlz,e qu.e.s'ti0n ofitx admix.s'i1)i!it_tt:b"Qhee ct ctt)c114tjteht been marked as an e,=;'h~.i.[_7it irzbthe i.:ec'1.\b'VbVc5tt.«;1r1d'{he"tr'ittl has pr()¢-gecled all (t[r)hg'h'r2;': t»'1_e?f'(}r)tt;}1r.*grV:b_that the document was an (exhibit m_.::;:».'.c;-;m~.¢t.;w:;t used by the parties {Eh -- '~":§I§\T.('.£t7'!I.I1:£:-?Ii()§t't "c"1;r~1J"c'tt%t::t5:§-=e>;'r(1hzincztt()n of their vt*itnee.\'e:,s';'~ (;'.a)me.s' into operation . 0I1C(¥Kfl';'§!t)({Lt't1't.'ett:fathttf ."2(,'.t'.I1VVV.(I(J7l't'tI.IZ(3(/ in evidence as zc':;}."()t*e,5'cti(t'--, ..(:tj).;%tt..-'ceitttctt' to the Trial Court' it,s'e{)"

rtrbto. Cttttrt ()fVA;:gbe(t/ or revixion tr) go behind that 'V order. M'C711:(lI1 Qrder is not one 0fth0.s'e jud.'ict'ct[ orders ate liable to be r'ew'ewed or revised by the same V ' ..C0_W -' V 0?" bf? C05"? 0f.\'ttPet"1'at'jnrisch'c..'tr'nh. " ' A-..__Th_e~ ~:a.g5e~Xb court accordingly reversed the decision of the S 29 In Hirzdustan Steel Lt'm.ited vii. Messers Dilip {at Crmstrut.-tion C0rn;)any, ]969(1)(SCC 597,'the apex addressed the question whether there was at bar against an appeviVJ.ate_4ic<.)u11 questioning the correctness of the iower court having' an unstamped document in evidence. ._ The parties having referied a dispute' to arbitration.;:ii~npdet_ the Arbitration Act, 1940, an iar'b:iiif1'aptioniawarci.piibiiiaeihed the umpire , as the a1'bit1"atoi'.sf_ hadidiitfeiredpiiﬁand was' filed into the Court of the District J udge. had filed an application to" hia3ie'the3--. avé.ia1"d One of the grounds 1'aisediai_n that that the award was unstamped and the1'eforeii"was,Vliiable'..tti,:be sei'--aside being invalid. The res~piond_ent§ in i't'urn_____applied to the Court that the award be ' imﬁpouiidedi'"and:validated by levy of duty and penaity. The award wasdnipounded by the Court. The respondents were called' to pay the duty and penalty. That order was cvhaiienged by way of revision petition to the High Court. The 5 30 said petition was rejected and the appellants were before the £ip€X COl.lI'[.

it was contended that as the instrument 11o't"-s't'a1ir1ipca:d as required under the Indian Stamp _tA»c.t,< it rjnayibefadrniitted't' evidence on payment of duty and but'<:a1;not upon for, "the instrument has n'o_e;x.istei1ce..in' thej'veyievoif'laiw". It i was thus contended.'th.at the" District._ Couitwias without. jurisdiction in proceeding to enflertziin.-t.heva'ppl.ication. On a c'orn;ti.i.nedfeedingSiections 34,35,36,38,39.40 and 42 of'the"ital-(ii'Actpjthe 'apex court held that the award, which is ""insti'um'en't'3iwithin the meaning of the Stamp Act w_a§:.i'et;i'uired to"'l3e....stvamped. Being unstamped , the award C rcould received in evidence by the Court, nor Could it be acteid uponfc But the court was competent to impound it and to send the Collector with a certificate in writing stating that ii'i--,.vt'heiiA*amount of duty and penalty levied thereon. On the .----inst1'u1nent so received the Collector may adjudge whether it is ' 6 31 duly stamped and he may require penalty to be paid thereon, if in his View it has not been duiy stamped. If the duty and penaity are paid, the Collector wiii certify by end01'sem.cnt on the instrument that the proper duty and penaity have«V.heeh':" K It was held that, .

"Art inxtrwnerzt which is not received in evidence by ctr-tit!';Jer.s'()h"wh0 itaS'1ethttthe)--xt't}r to receive evidence, and L'cth':2.(it he acted -- I/h::>i()rt bjththat person or by any '.:)fl;l':'~Q_["t"(.' .Seieti()r1 35 ;t)'AI"()iV/'L'd£:'.S' ' that the cl({I?Ii.S'.s'i]9i[iI_\«-I (}f;Lc4"e-.t1cz'r11t'ttec1 in evidence Shttf! hot, 6>1.x/Eht-I4é)V!}'lf-::{[V':"\" V p.=1(h'_tfttet£ it'g':.'h'Sech:'ti()r1 6], be caller! it2f;,t.tte.<yt':'()r2 ,ctt'».a11),=_ stage of the same suit or pft:>g7ee.clihg.ottxhtheh"atrtimzai.-t/1.at the in.s'trLtment has not been t:?tt!_§.' trtaznpect "

Rehti'n.;{{"tt}§t)n the (hfference in the phraseology hi " » . :Sec'tt'()n.s' 35 and 36 it was urged that an is not ([L{l_\-' .s'tamped I-nay be aclmitted in,.__'ei«itte'itc'e on. payment qf ditty and penalty, but it ecz,Itt1()t be acted upon bet.-cutse Section 35 operates' as a 'jbar to the admi.szs':'0n in eviclenee of the t'n..s'trtm1enI' not Hidttly .s'tc1mped as wet! as (0 its being acted Ltpcm, and the Legixlatttre has by Section 36 in the ct)ncZ1'ti0ns set out {5 .-----.m...._,§-ti .s'tatnpet_i.

1;) ix.) therein removed the bar (211!)-' against ctcZt:r1is'_s':'0tt in evidence Qfthe in.s'trttm.ent. The czrgttm.en.t z7gn0re.\' the true import of Section 36. B): that sectiotz an l'I1.S'{.KL£ttI€Vt1t' ~ once acltnittecl in e.vi(t.'ertc.'e ..s'hctll not be ¢1T'(/l.t1[€d-,VVt-ft' ' que.s'tt'on at any .5't'(Ig€ ofthe mine ..stt.tt't or p-t'E)t;"eec!tt;g hon" . the ground that it has not been :t:_lLtly:-.s'tczttnped§ ,S'ec'ti'(.it1e,__ 36 does' not prohibit a ehctlfenge ctgActi'rt~.s't an Tin';.s:rttntent°'. that it .s'/mil not be ctetetl i€t,?.2»>().ViE.'b6'C'(£Lt3¥?. hit..t§s'_'_:n()a}';ditty stctmped, but on that (1('C'()£tt1.I.lh-€ﬁ'€'i.§i,_tl() bttr' czggtitﬁt an in.s'trument not (lbtly._.S'lCtItt'£}:2(4([sV:' 1'9vei't'i~tf: upon after payment of the tS'lL'lI?Z['?H(!ttl}'VV(1t;1'ht%th I,-':)€'t1.',/_11,Iv_:\'.'V1;tVC§Te!Vt'ditIg to the procedure ',r'?t':e{§'c,?riE2e(2' h_'t'.Tt1_.e tf()tlbI, tfctny, ix t'em()1{ed h'i,gx__= t;h.t~.'-';tet*tt1§:-..Q}"Set;*-tt'()h_' 42(2) which enact, in terms' ut2ni't'.stqI<abt'r3,"thitt eatery itistrzttment endorsed by C(t_t'tA'ec;1.*t0r_tthrter-- ..S.'ec<.t.vVt:c).r1_ 1) shall be adntis.S'z'hie in ' exri-(1ert«c'e czt1d'tnA:ay tJc% (t'[;?t(%.ct l.t[)()t't as 1:/"it has been clttly i.

The Sttthtgﬁ Act is (I fi.s'ectl mea.s't§re enacted to " sec.'ftt'r'e_"arevet-ute for the State on eertctin c.'la..s:se.s' of h",'it1.§I't'tt_tT1£'ﬁf.§;.' It is' not €t1CI('I'€d to arm ct htigctnt with a we-a;:7¢.;'.n"'()_f'technicalit_y to meet the case of his opponent. The:'.s'trt'ngent ,r.9r'm-=i.s'ir)n.s' of the Act are c.-onceived in the ."_.intere.s't of the revenue once that object is secttred according to law, the part_v xtcz/ct't-lg his clctim on the t'n.s'trLtmenI will not he dcjfectted on the gE'()Lti1d of the 3 'K 33 initial! defect in the ff'E.\'IFIll?7(<'lII. Viewed in that ﬁght the scheme is clear. Set'tt'on 35 of the Stamp Act operates' as a bar to cm. mzstamped in.s'tr:m1.ent being ac/m.:'ttea' it} evidence or being ctciterf Z-I[)()I7,' Se(7t:'0n 40 pr0v:'de.siVthe!'"._ procedure for ifI.S'{FttJ?'t€fILS' being imp()LlHd6C.ﬂ....._§t;£3h).f""' section (1) QfSecti0n 4.2 ,r)r0v:'a.'e.s'_f():' ¢ret't1f)*t'ngﬁ hh instrun-t.em t'.s' (ht/_}' stamped, atm'~~ .5:u4ia-.3-5*;-titbﬁ' 2 Section 42 enacts' the csm-tseqttettcjes Ifa?;*.!r.tlfitt;:;'_f1r(2h1" A certt'ﬁcati(m.

8. Our attention was i1ivit'ec.' ._t0 the .<.'t¢1ter12ei31t of law by M. C. D€_Ydi,':a.'f."'.fI1 1'7'/A[.S'f.:.Bhff:fgtt4,vJBibi and At4rvtr.)t/ter Vs. KLWIIH La! and Another:

':i'9;.tft Ex ftrbh/tibhiteed"_fh':r admitting an 3;';.s'trtttt1enVt"'Ew:t"teyicienttre'(Md (T Court and a pubiic ()}fj"z'eer bot'/2__a4re ;)fahif;--iterlv_ft'tgh'1'Etcting upon it. Thm' (1 Court his pr*r2tiihttec/Vfimttt; hdth. admitting it in eviclertce and "5?:.cIg?tit£g_ Ltpnrfit.._...1t«jb/[ow.s' that the actt'ng'up0n ix not iIftc'lttc£eti'--~i1t the cm':-ni.s'.s'i0n and that Cl ci()c'mnent (fail be 'KA(IE&'.I'f1'f[lV€Cl',AV:i'f1~'€Vfd(3i'lC'€ but not be acted upon. Of'c0ur.s'e it (f:'!i'l'i;lt"g?rA7b€ acted upon witI'mttt its" being ctdmittec/, but it Catt: be admitted arm' yet be not acted upon. [fevery cidcttrnent, upon (1dI11i.m'()t2, became cmtomatically lictbfe to be acted upon, the pr()vis1'r)n in Sec-[ion 35 that an. it2.s'trtmzent L'/tctmgecrlﬁ/,e with duty but not duly 5 341 stctmperl, shall not be c:c.'red upon by the Court, woulrl be reztt/erecl redttndcinr 1:23.' I/tr' pr0vt'.s't'0n that it shall not be cidrnitred in e'vic1cer2c.'c{jir)r* tiny [)iH'[)()S({. To act u.p0_t1_ cm imtrument is to give (f]f€.(i'f to it or to enforce it. T In ()Lll"_fL£(llg}?1é'}'Il, the learned Judge atrtfilfttrerlilft)-ll' Section 36 a meczrzing which I116. 16%-,'i.s'lcefizlré'* slit.' imt', intend. AItem'i0n ofthe Leurnerll J ztrigta 1}v'(1;3', £2';_E)£lT)'C'E-l"e"f'i«fl'_Zb1" i not irzvited to Section 42(2). oftheAct'e,xpre.s'.§'ly; JA"'¢.ff£(1'IJrLS":" ii an imlrttnzent, when ('("ll"i'*'.j,"-{.il'\'~(3"t'..'," by hle;a;1()nsfeﬁteri'i*;ViHtlzatl proper duty and pt_%r1(llt_',: ;l1y.(.t'.1_/l.l'.l%A"v.'."?,'£'£":"'i.V?_v levied.inHr'eV.i1t9ec'r I/iercaﬂﬁ capable ()_';"..Ii€{i'r2(:,r 'tl(.'[(f£!vltjﬂgfli if it had been duly Stcunpcad. "

Rafa'l?:::ttgi1:_v.s:..:Ba{jrcz1zg La! & others, AIR 1978 SC 1393, the who was the appellant, had filetlﬁalsuit forl"aV.declaration that he was entitled to a right of txivxtorship, by'«ttii*a,_ in a particular temple , in terms of a will. The Suitwizts reatjslteti by the defendants on various grounds --- but the only point that survived for consideration before the apex court V"-l'_va.21_.s'.4'\}y«*hether the document relied upon should be construed as H_a_aiWill or a gift, and if the latter, whether it is admissible in 3 35 evidence on the ground that it was not duly stamped and registered as required by law'?

It was found that during the course of the trial, tiled ~ plaintiff had produced the document, was raised by the defendant -- i"that._the inadmissible in evidence it was..y>not duly' sta'r_npaed"a'nd for V want of registration. ,I""IT]}e meant not decide the objection, but made a note was being admitted ,subje<:tlt'oy:yob_ie;etion.'i"}\t"the 's'tage.:of final arguments , the courtllifejected tliie'co1ite'ntion_"las'regards admissibility , by recourse, to Act; As regards want 01 registratiorhiitllwasliheldithafjihe document was not compulsorily regisﬁerlable. The" subject matter of the suit, it was held, was- .ﬁ"(turln' of 2wfors'l:i;g)- movable property. On appeal the judgement 'the.itr'iail'*court~was reversed» it was, inter alia, held that the document. .ini"jqtiestio1i was a gift deed relating to immovable g 36 property and therefore was invalid for want of registration. That finding was affirmed by the High Court in a second The apex court held that duty and penalty'-~»hia§J..Apai:d when the document was tendered 'in e_vi£i--ence and whenﬁrn objection was in fact raised. "iii "so far as the quiest'io1'1v-..whethe1'= ' the right to worship by turn is iinr.inio'f.tab'l,eA.proip'ertyy~:,tin a close examination of the to several authorities, it of Shebaitship is heritable office he is an administrator of the of which he is Shebait.

Both and property , of duties and personal interest are bileeirded together in the conception of when a question concerns the rights of "itii"r¢ntis'tiV;"b'e taken to include whatever the Hindu law . classiiifies-'pas'iinmovable property although it may not be so in iiu't»the'iordinary acceptation of the word. Hence it was concluded ' that the document in question not being registered, was held to 2*:

37 have been rightly excluded from the evidence, and consequently the dismissal of the suit.

In Peters' Subba Ran vs. Anuiiiczia S.Narendra,Vu{2Q0Z)]0 SCC 427, the facts were, a document was appellant in a suit which was pendin_gmbefore_--the" t.{i_a]lc'o1irt. As " » the document was not duly stamped"-p, the tfialii'coi1if.t'Vl}eld:'tha{fit was exigible to stamp duty, as«_a"sale-- 1ind_e1* the'-.:E'x.pl'aii'atlion to ' V Article 47--A of Schedule I--_A""of-the-»i,.Indiaii'Stariap Act as amended by the State The trial court dii'ect:e'dlits" to a deiﬁaiid for the duty and penalty payable on-the tire plaintiff . And further directed theme the letveyhuha: thelplaint.iff should fail to make payment wit'l3inE*hthel'atime fihed, the suit would stand dismissed. .'_Ii'hcreupony'theﬂegistry was required to send the document to the""Col--lectoii for realization of the duty and penalty. The said oitdeér having been challenged before the High Court, the 3 38 revision petition was dismissed and the appellant was before the apex court.

The apex court held that the trial court holding that the suit would stand dismissed _i'f'W'asV'_faiIaV;'e to pay the duty and penalty payable'. docurnennt_lc:oi;1l.dhe admitted in evidence only ifldu__ty~.and penaltylwerepaidlil In a"

case where the party is not W.§'I'I'Ill-g':'Ol;V'VhC canniotttaefford to pay the said sum the court is .c.req'u*irer.'l t_£).ii'a€1opt'_'__the procedure of impounding the"docurr:entg the Collector for takingifurti"ier:esteps7f;is (j5OJﬁI.tt2n}pIt"lItEidﬂul1der the Act. In that case , however,'-the'apes'.co'urt"»»rIii'ected that the trial court should await the receiptwoil' the ce;'t':l'icate of the order passed by the f:or«_proceeldling further in the suit. In other words the .suiit c'o'uld<be revived on} on recei t of such certificate. In Vsftytainal Kumar Roy us. Sushi! Kumar Agarwal, AIR SC 637, the interpretation of Section 36 of the Indian 5 ,f:_" "ﬁt! 39 3 Stamp Act, E899, as amended in the St.ate of West Bengal , fell for consideration. The parties had entered into an agi'ee"n1ent to develop the suit property. A dispute havin_g':*--erup'tied-, respondent had filed a suit for decla.rat'ionpan:fl in_j4un{::toryvrelielis. ' And having failed to sustain an orde1' 'o_fi'temp"o.rary i.njn_nction . " :,V"~. ' ' granted by the trial court, hadpthen filed suit "for speciﬁc performance. The re.sp'o.ndent'iihadi; in'ii't._hat suit ﬂexhibited a Development Agreemeriﬁ objection by the appellant, who trial court. After completion..of*theVeviirl'ence7_'and"at tljiestage of' final arguments, the appell.antshad'"fiiled,_a'p.pli';:a'tions to have the admission of the agreement in evvidenice;recalled and to have the document sent tO_"{fl6 :C:ollecto1"ito« have it impounded. Those applications were ' srejertted:'l>v'»th'e-.trial court, the High Court had affirmed that order andithcsappellant was before the apex court. ltvivvas canvassed that the object of the West Bengal Act waspii.-'to collect revenue for the State and therefore the courts V ._..helow had incorrectly opined that Section 36 of the Indian 6 40 Stamp Act was a bar to the applications. The apex court after considering the language and scope of the relevant provisions and the case law cited, held, that though there is no dispiite._that the agreement in question was not duly stamped--§and"

not registered. The effect of non~«1'egi.s.tration_--'Vi/ias"hev1di'iiotAto bell ' a matter of concern. It was opined ti1attihet'e is*n_o' doubt terms of Section 33 of the lndianrSt;amp.iAct,'atsiarr;é.ijkie'd by the"

West Bengal Act, a duty.' is eiithes..concertied~"authorities, including the courts to -i.éiin;iovnii1d _.a.ii"'d'ocii1r,nent where the instrument prodticeil b€;f01'E_3 it':is"'irisiiffic_ie.iitly stamped. When a deficiency is' brought to the notice of the Collectorioré it :)thervitis_e' £:tj.E'11€S to his notice, he may call for the i1is»trt1rneia!c _ for iit'l1e.__._p_ui'p()se of satisfying himself as to the i thereon and proceed to deal with the instrumenthj terms of Section 38 thereof.

14. Section 36, however, provides for a 'stand A I alone' c'fcms'e. [I omegaric:'c'z[l_i-' pmhz'bz'r.s' a Court ofiaw ii from reopening a i1?£IIf(?I' in regard to the s'L4/ficiency or 8 4! 0therwi.s'e Q)" the Hump dttty pain' on an inxtrmnetzt in the event the sttnte has been adrr-titted in evidence. Only' one excfeptian. has been made in t/Its' be/tazlf via, the [)rc)vi_s'irm..s' contairzecl in xgetimz 6 [)l"()V4"C]l't1gx reference and rewIs'f0tz. In a case where Secftitm "

the Act, as amended /7__\«' West Bengali Ac't-'..t1:fauVld:VV:be applicable, the prm>tIs'a (tpperta'ed._t() .s'tti.3b¥'.S'et,'ttf'{;.nbY5)A.' can-*e.s' out an e.xeept:'rm that ('f'rt{) C'{LfI£7()tl:» mtr2tttt1.be AA after a period 0ff()LU' _vear.s_"f2rc)r7i'--tf:be«:late Qt'-'Ve.xbe:Cubti()ft aft/1e in.s'tmmer1t. "

The 21 ex court with tefe1'ch'ce.ii"t:o ement in Javer C band is case *_- _ :'''v.'A]6'.-- ' btitere are, is an authority for the';7tb()p().s'itioti"Ibc.v.t':S'eet'tt)11 36 would operate even If a ' --.'1(tC'L{i't:teiz-IV ba.-{bee}: z'rb1)t"c);2er'l}r admitted in evidence. It 15;"-~A(,]f2'~.I'Al.'I16' at' ﬁt)"C'fft2.S'8C}Ll('fl('(? as 10 whether a document :'=t.a;S'=Ij_>eetz' admitted in ewdenee on determination of a « g:t;3;g*;.t;mfj':23 regards' adn-1i,s'.s'ibilt't_v thereof or upon (1,_;_'tS'1'3c?;:z:$'(ttir)r1 Qfforn1rat.' proof therefor. Ifa part); to the zt'.J'V'.vs"_A':'!'}I1'€fI£1.S' that an instrtmzetrt proclmed by the other part}: being fiI.5'lt!ﬂEL'f£ftIf[_}' Xtampecl shattld not be admitted in evidence, he I?Il£SI rai.s'e an 0/;;jeeti0n thereto 5 42 at the appropriate .s'tage. He tnay not do so only at his peril. "

in so far as the object of coliectiun of revenue being it was expressed thus by the apex court, "23. It I-titty be true that the Q$gj'et't'-t3f' is to collect revenue and the (ll"t?..e'lléiittl-'(€~."'tI.S' 7C the State of West Betzgatt prr)vt'ties_ nz;e7)%gﬁtrtngetzt VA steps in that behayl It I?l(l_'y'F'v'v£"LE:E.LS.'V'(')' be trué.t[ta'tc regz.s'()n of sztb~sectt'()n (4) 0f':Secti()tt.u3'3 West'Be'rtgal Act, (1 Jury has been cast ' L'q') t)_I~?. ttze its mind when an iizstrumef_lt lta1.~;;¢gV:i;t_.sft'gjj'iAc:iettt .$ttEttjzt)" is brought to its fZ()tl'C(3; ?T2t;{;.E'; ()1?/}-' tftsitce/§_I' A 3e(L'ti'o1zf36 Qf the Indian 'St'czn2p AvC"t'V(}{tf12fz()I'15'e'4 'i?1(lE3'€.'[I'lcl[)[)lt'C'a/ﬁle. Section 36, as imil1'cated f:efeitftl2efi.:te',"<a;)plt'es on its own force. ' ".2-4, vAj);Je[itVt'ttt_f;t'lecl an ctpplicatitm under Section 38 of Ihcttictn StctVt'tt}}«Ac't. The .said pr0v1'.s'ions were clearly _ tT()>'.i%.L:'.£1")'V,f)t!::l'VC"éLi'..i3l'(3 as thereby pmeedure has been laid down ' steps are reqzured to be taken upon i:'11tg§(Jtt'ttdir1g; C1 document. It fm't/zermore appears that the question in regarcl to the app1z'cal:ril1'ty 0fSub-- H Section {4} 0_}"Sectt'(m 33 oft/te Act had not be ranted. " 5 43

In Avinctsh Kmnar C'/"tcm!'zcm vs. Vijcty Kris/ma Mishra, AIR 2009 SC 1489, Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Star.rip.Act, 1899 came in for interpretation. The factual was, the respondent who was said to be a member--»of'~aV Schedufedw. b Tribe sought to transfer a house and a'pp.urtenantV"laiid:";.__'fog-f_'a sum of Rs.2.70 Iakh. The arniou--nt waswpiaid. Prior permission of the Co_l.!ector"'.._was i i'e--qui1'ed for the transaction to be conipietedvififheiii'Cjoiieetor had refused permission. TheLappel§a11t:ifi'ied.4a"s,t';--i.tforzrecovery of the price paid and entered into with the respondent,-- in"e.v'idence;__z'-The-document was directed to be impounded the t_riai and the appeilant was directed to pay'-f.dut_y and i'p'e'na1.tjy,.v That order was affirmed by the High ' Cou1t.v._Vf'r if It wasmicohtended before the apex court that having regard to the"faC:t that the said unregistered deed of sale was sought to in evidence not for the purpose of enforcement of the if _,_c§o11tract but only for the purpose of recovery of the amount of S consideration, which indisputably had been paid to the respondent and such «Ci purpose . it was urged , being a eellateral one, the provisions of sections 33 and 35 of the attracted . Reiiance was sought to be p13ced.0n_:theV 'pf0vi.s0"te.V Secti0n49 of the Indian Registration :;t-lsvoythhe decision in Brmdar Singh. v. Sinvg_',?}'2..('V'2()0.i"*);%? W1. VA N egativing the contentions the fa_pVe'x,_¢<;L1_;*t held', ")6. It is not .;'Vr_1V_ .rL'fI1.Sv'[)£{'?'(V? irha-t'=th:----ﬂitr)§:s'e.sxs'z'on of the [)F()[7{£."{'y'.f1CE([ béien (!r9],z*t'=cer'r:H'vé'fz--..,f;zt'()Vt1r ()ft/'I6 appellant. H.€*i1(1J;,__ 1711.: .3}, beer:__c{.rze_1'c*M1-2--g' .\'o_me riglzt in or over the htciittii Wc>'._'t'ttéV'Vn()I concemed with the C"':7';4f()f"C'C%l'V?V'.t!ug':.:'V"'LL'l'.' ctgI'€e111enI. At't/tough the .s'ame if-'e'§'A'"I7()IxVi"£g;iﬁft'6'}"etf;w /ml I'egtLs'trc2Ii(m of the cioctmzent _Iza.s-}»u;~r};_Eng'4 t0xd() with 1/15' vczlidity thereQf'a,s* provided fr.)r tuzder tliéjJ}t()v1'.s'z'0rz.s' aft/16 Irzdiczn Regi.s'trarirm Act, 'h . ltavce n(.)2'i('r4¢:1' /m"et0be_ bra that Section 33 of '*4;/ie" Act ca.s't.s' (1 .s'tc1tu!0r_y obligation on all the hczzttthrmties I0 impmmci (2 document. The court being an authority to rec'cJIt-wt ct d0c'um.mt' in ew'den.ce is bound to give €jj'J:)<.-I If:er'cat().

18. The unre.gi.s'tet'ed deed of sale was an in.s'trLitheht which required ,t)i'tyti-let-it of the s'tamp ditty app_il't'c*c1_"hie"._ to a deed of canve_1r(1I'zc,'e. Adeqiictte ::_t§Itnf}".tf£'Ltt}' (Z(ii?'ll'fI8(ii__\-' was not paid. The c'rmrt,_.tJ1ete;'bt*e[ was €.'?1])()W(3!"€d to pass an nrdefin terms' h0_}".S3e«:'ti.ir)';e_ the Act.

- 19. The ctmtehtirm. Qf leat"itet!.:C0ttn.s'ei the (ti2[)6ii('lt?[ that the Cl'(')('Ivt};iI.ui'.'J"l1u- ta-dt:t2is.$"i!2.[e 'f'r)i"ii eellcitercti pl»H'p().S'8_, in ()ltt"'()iII,'_'_I-t"Ii-(')iI2;,. iii'.s':' ~e"(_;,rft'1iec_t. In Bondar Singh (.Slt{)_t"(l) xttitt (,:tthIe'(?f't1€d with the prr)_Vi--_s:fi0rts'h' hiihferpretcztion of the pr}wi.st;i(}t;.s' cjf' »tfzeffhetgi5'tti'cii1i(ji'1 Act, 1908 was in qitest i .6: E1. [[1 we c}pr_.'t1 ed: --

"'Ft.':1_e mam._qtte.sIiQt1r, as we have already rt0§e(!, is the zqL£(3.S'I.'I()t2._()f Cnntimmiis p(t.s'se.sS10h 03/ the pt.'ctttf1tt_]'f.s' over the' wit laitcisihi The sale deed dated 9.5. I 95' by Fttkir T. '"father of the defendants in f'cwt,)iit of Tola 5'ih}gt;,t1' the predeeessor-in--interest of the plaintiffs', is Aanh itdmitted document in the sense its executiort is not in dispute. The oitiy defence set I-if) agctihst the said document is that it is titistamped and imregistered and therefore it emmot ('()r1ve}.* title to the land in favour of the ,i2laintif]fs'. Under the law (1 sale deed is required to Z 46 be properly stem-:pea' and regixleretl be bre it can c'()t1ve_y title to the venclee. Howe:-'er, legal positioit is clear law that (I (l()(.'I-ll'JI('lI[ like the mile deed in the presem' case, even tlzc)t-zglz not aclzmmilale in evi§le.r_1ee.,_ can be I00/cecl into fer' c'0llate.ral pm'p().s'e_s:_..._lln present eaye the colluteml purpose t01_,l)el,s'ee:z»ei,§'lllilt(%e~ i _ .

nature 0]"p0.s:s'e.s'.s'im-1 (3/"the pl(z.zT:1tj_{j'fs' twér' tl1e=,s_';m' lzzmtl. The Mlle deed in que,s'ti0n L21 lea,-,s'erA. f5'l1§t;"'~?y'.S' A.tli(zt 'l.71'i-:'i_(1l*u1~ W 1 I'. ll .' V' p0.s'.s'e.sxs'i0n of the pl(tz'n;It'f].'9 over {lie .s't1i}_l let-;r;(l lwclzs r}j(2t'* illegal or tmc.mtl10ri:,e(l. b In this cc.t.s'e, .t'ec1.s'r),v:"?,§}"Athe _§'}'atut()r_y l t'm'e'r"dt'c'I, no Ira:-zsfer' at all"E3T';,1ermVl;s'.§*t'ble.».V: A,VEven transfer of .70.s1s'e.s'.s't'(m is cxlm v--.~aot'=)er.v~ni's'.s'lble See 'Pcmde -' Orarm l . .1 . . ..

Supp .92) SCC 77 and ll".AAmrendra'Pitt;ttzp_llS.€z:g--l1 v, Tej Balmclur Prajapati and

l)t:'7_e}cs,, ( .1 0 CC 65).

The"'Regi§trat.ir)n. Act, .1908 pmvicles for smell (1 Aem2tt'izger2c'y in terms; of the prow1s'0 appended to 1 :'§eet':'l)'i2.=49 thereof; wlzieh reacls as Lmclern E}f]e(.'t of I-z0n--registratior1 of (lac:/tmen.t.s' V reqztirecl to he regi.s'tere(l.--

5 (rt) (17) H') S;r).ec*if}'e I (3 of 1877) or as', evidence of 47 . . § N0 (l()eLm2em' req1..m'ec! by Seenm-1 17 or by (my pr0v:ls'i()n. of the Tm:-'z.s_'/er of Properfy Act, 1882 1882), to be regi.s'Ie.red .x'/rall-

cg}ffe.c'r any irm-nnvczlyle property ('(21-n;)r.-'--}§'e'cJ z/;g'r._4in,_ (IF c.'nn_.fer czny power to ztcfdpf. 0r,_ ] be received as' T.ew'(lenCe 2,-ff (H1;-ﬂ,fl:rdn.';fIc'IEof:"a ajj'eeting .s'u.e/1 [7t'()per'I;;r__' .0551 c'()rqfe;fr1'rﬁg_ .S';{::'iz;v j§'0w'e1", LII!/63.5' if fms been reg1'.s'Ie_;_'e.::1';'.__ ' Provided than 'kmT-i.:12k'e5j;T.$'fered.V:cZ()e:.(mer2t czffecting im1m2vczl'u,'e ;)I'(),r2c*-m.*_ mic]---re(/ztffecf 1)§§1."fhi.s' Act or the 1' Pr'P--rpc*}'I)"' Aer, of 1882), to be Tr'ctn.:,j'er& 1;

re=fgi.9Iered"iﬁérybbeff eec"e£.1:eg'1 (hf evidencre ofa conmszct in ct 's'tifE1ﬁ)r .s',i;1e(,':",'*.'Ee'p,erjfb1'rmtnc'e under Chapter [1 of the ctiiy tv,ll(tIemE_t}"m[;$c1('ti():'z 120! recfrnred Ir) be cfﬂeerecl LA by re is't_¢'1'e(! m5'trumenI "

2»j'..A§e.r,'.A?1'::rz1 35 ofthe Act, /':.0wever', rules out czpplicalailiry 1,1'i£eh='pmvissnfon (.13 if is eczregnrimlly provided .\If1'e}j+:zin rim: or clowmzelzi oft/1i.s' nature shall not be " w.:zdmiIIed_f'0r any pm'po,s*e wlmI.s'0ever'. [fall ,m.u"p05es "for wlzieh the doc'mnem' is .s'0ughi to be brought in evidemie are e_x'elua'e(I', H.-'('f(Ii/ in see any reamn as In 3

22. «L...

48 how the d()(.'l.l.I'l78l1I wrmlcl be (:(l1n:Is'.s'£b!e for collateral pu rposees'.

The View we lmve taken __fi'nd5 .s'upp()rr 'f}*()rn.~'-[Ire deet'.s'i0n of the Privy Cotmcfil in "That the words for cmy ,rJL4r;)r2S.ca_' in .§%€(,'IlV;('1)'fi.V:,3'..')' Fgffﬂze Stamp Act .s'h()uld he givcen Ilheiri-im.r.iH'aeZ.1nedm'rig:a;Icf:g A eﬂ'ecI and would J':z(.'!'m.'e_ (1 c'c)lfaAre'ml /3111108,-*..:';e ﬁzrid tfzafe an um't(1mpe(1.' /)c1rIifi0*:1»"deecl CfLt~.'1Iﬁ();", f?€ *.'4.s'eef to C()i'I'()b()f"ClIC' the oral Aee-vFdenee~~..for Ih'ev-pu.rf3().s'e Qf determining eve-.'zff/1e';,/trczgzmz"'".'?i.:;'tiIc'()11 as (1i.s'tz'ncI' 5:

The ;rr.1itz' (Ze.:;i.s~i.()rr*£z_c:.s- :':7ee11f()[1r)wec/ 31 a large number (if c1ec,'z'.s't';;Jn..s' .Ab_}v' five said murr. I91 [3/za.s'kai'ctlJ/wtla _ P(zc1mana'i9i'zaz'cih and Others vs. 8. Lakmininarczyana wiamf ome}.;»m-iR 1962 AP. .132), 1': /ms been held.--- "i,hi.s' case, I/are learned S£ib()J"([if7Cl[G Judge has (J:':'.:L\'f'(4t'»:L'(3c&r that what rite p[aintzjj" was Irying to prove wae nor the (liwkirm in xlalus but to .s'/20w that the V ./)I"()]7€f'I_}' was diw'de(/ I1H'.(/('.I' rhe parﬂtirm deed. In (zrzy case, Ihe_faeI rlzcin' I/Ie d0c'umenr is inczdmi.s'.s'z'ble due 10 wcmf r)f/aeing .s'I'(z1@J(/ is <'!7e(1r. For, in Ram Ratlan v. Rﬂn R(£.fz"'(!}i , Parmananrl, (AIR 1946 PC 5]} w/Ieremii w:f_Ls' i1eld:'--.__ 49 Pcm-nar-rand, AIR 1946 PC 5;', their L()m'.s'l1ip.5' of the Privy C()um":'l held Ihar the worcls for any ;)urp()5'é'*--ein S35 Qf the Stamp Ac?! .3'/'z()uld be giver; t!1.e1'r--'f'itt.fii'r(if' mecming and eﬁ"e(.'I and wrm/0' imflude (z§__c,*()fZc;'fe'rc)i purp().s"e and that an Lm.s'Iamped pczr'tificm. ,(_a:.'ee_d '(reiIzn():' be used to c'0rmb()mre :/1:» nftrz' ._ev.icZer'u':e j-Ir_)r_ fife purpose ofcieierrnirziug even A:tl1eff¢re'I14n1 0f_,_17cz~r.tiii()h.Liza.V di.m'm;'t_f}"()m its terms.' .

Ir wa_s'flu'r/7eI'nrc)1'e x V "[0. In Vf fA2e v[earnecl M Lmsj f--M czg1'.s'tr'c.z}e _'_'_I"1!'(:T.' v__'cm. instI'umem' ()']c]9(£i'I1'{'tt{;'l?.' unsief Vi/2er}Viec11'an Stamp Act arid i.s'::7:7?)'f r:tVciir.z1'.s'€.=.11"/v9v.le#fefi'e;'iei1'(,'E? l)ec'cm.s'e if is nor .s*Ie:nrp-.';:f£;_,V . Em, hVe~4'clV"II-'1aI If rlze ciocumem :'9e(,'i)':;L+z;f..s' efzify .s-.'qn'2~,-_)Vc)cl._ If:en it would be adini.s'.$'ibl€ to 'Lev.idence 'IE7:uDI*015€' ':»he.--~ d:'w'.s'1'0n in sraiux but not the terms' (.}f'z'l1e_ ;)t;.rtfii(»?it.

In'Sg;1.jee'f2d"R'et?(!f V. .I()/mnpurrcz Recldi, (AIR 1972 AP " 3 i'I --.J'_2a.s' been held: -

»"Wh.ile c'()n.w'der:'r2g the ..s'c"0pe of Sermon 35 of live " v.V_}nd1'cz11 Stamp Act we ('armor bring in I/19 effect ()_fIIOII- regi.s*Irari0n of a cl0(..'11n7em' under' Section 49 of the Indian Reg:'A'tr(zIion Am. Secrhm 17 of the Indicm. Re.gim'czIi()r': Aer deal.s' L-1.-'1'rh. cf()c'um.er:I.s', the regi.s'-Irari()n 3 5 0 of which is' c*r)tnpt.t/sor)-' and Section 49 is' cort.eerrzed oni__1-' with the effect of meta non-regmrcition (1]f."'~!'.t"'I(' doom-nettts which require to be regi.\"tered by I 7 or by (m._}' pro vi.s'ion o./"the Tt'(lt'l.Sf(?t" of'Pr-igpertjth ' The effect ofnon»regi.s'tratiorz is' that .s'i_-:..r_:.h_cioeiimer1.t shall not (1 "ea (HIV t't1z:tzttL'c1,.5te h7'rt.:«<7.€rtf"'y' c-tov6're:.o' 1) ?"it or Confer any power to act()[)t}'1t~t(t it A'c'(tttrioi,/9e. reeei1.{e*d. V ii' (is eviciencie ofon_).= tt't2ri._sin;tir)tt or eonjerrit-tg yneh powerfigtttthere"i.a1_hnofprohibition under Section .-"i9...trJ t"«iA'i.'i.£"'t'L'5(<":i;S:ttetiT..(t ci()c'iiinerit which reqnirex regi'.s'tt"tithi'oi-'1: 'to, ._iv/io:<'_ at eotlciterai piirpose go, for 'ti;-1" c'-.',hI:.Iit.'."Ih'(-'?'t';',-t'.v:'Iiiﬁ§;f(%£tti kind independent ntcttter. is' tot'cti4_ihti,r.rvci' rihxointe bar as to the atirrti.s'.§jiohiofeiz ih;§'tt'mnent whatever be the ttc1ttireh'V--. o "Ct/ze-. 54.41" Jose or however oreim or i'--eindepe1tc[et'tt':_the ',".,7.t_it';:o.!;'e mtty bejor which it is sought f()"'~./_;v'(4vi{S€(i,A'.!tI:1ii'.iS'1;' there is complicince with the *reqtiirernent.s' of the /)r()ttiS(.') to Section 35. In other M)r(§.§' if an imstcztnpecl instrument is' admitted for (1 V' -- ftj()t3'titercti pnrpo.s'e.s', it won/d amount to t"£'('::'i'1't't'lg such it 'ct'oj_('r.inzent in evidence for at [)LH'[)().$'(I' which Section. 35 Jprtij/itibitiy. There is nothing in the c'a.s'e ofB. Rcmgaiah "it. B. Rcznga.s'wcttn_\r, (1970) 2 Andh WR 18.} which supporm the contention of the petitioner. That was a case as pointed out by 1r('ltp]?LL5'W(lJ?1i. J., where there were two it-z.s't'rmrtent.s' I/2()Hg/1 crorttained in one 6 51 doctmtettt, (me ct .s'ett.'et-nettt in favottr of the 4"' defendant therein and the other U Will. It was therefore held that part of the imtrtmzent which c0rt.s'titttte.s ct Will did not require any starnp and wile! be ctdtnimible in evidet-tce for proving the be_q:te;s'-t_ coritained therein. It was for that t'€C£.S'()f1_§i1'Lt!..>§i1¢i' i learned Judge said that Sec. 35 of the SIQt?l;tJ..A('Tq':?3.£tt$' no ctpplicatiott to ct case where""0'ne of the .§iepgc:rcttie.:'t.

instrttments relating to one .s'ttc'h mi_t'tte'r.s' W()l'£i(_i'ti0t (in in alt be chargeable itilCi(?F'ﬁl£_ Act east fit the before; him. ' In T. Bhcrskar R::to~T.' ':;aIT::f"tI'e.l"E1ft'.£1't}titel'S. (AIR 1981 AP I .]5_ it}hashhizeehihefd};

'Sec*tiVm/t-..35 _0j'[titvca_ Stamp Act t-n2m'date.s' that an itt;sitrutmett't~.c'hargett'bie'with cluty should' be?" smmped so

-- . as to" !?.1Ctkev't't ct'dmi's.sible in ewdence. (P visa A to

-Sect_i()n of-'---t=he Stamp Act ettables ct d0cL%nent to be

-,_re't,'e.iVecI__ in evidence on paymem of stamp duty and ,':"f'Q{t31c'ziwI7\;{.'i_7)":It7IL' a.'()czttnent is clzcirgeable, but not stamped VgtJ'r_(.?~rt paytttent of deficit duty and pettczlty, if it is . VttLS'L4{)ff1.Ci6i't[[_}' stampecl. The bar agat'n.s't the aa.'mi.s'.s'ibi!it_y-* of an imtrtttneht which is chargeabie with stamp dttty and is' not stamped is' of cottrse absolute whatever he the nature of the pttrpcwt', be it 5 U1 Ix.) for main or collateral pur_m),s*e, zmle.s'.s' the requ.1'rernem2s' o_fpro1't'.s'o (A) to Section 35 are complied with. It_fol!ow.s' that rftlte requir(.>n'zet1t.s' of provi._s'o to Section. 35 are .s'uti.sfied, then the u'oc'ument '}{14'!'TI'l'C'}1'V V chargeable with (fatty, but not munpeci, can be fe(:e.iped in evidence. " ._ It was ﬁtrther l1elct.'.'--

"7. It is now well .s'ett!ea'_V_tYz.:tt tl2e't'*eis 110'pi"(3:Eii('3i~I.iC'?i under Section 49 ofthe RegE';vtratior2 Aet,«.to receive an tmregi.s'tered d();?.z.[i}:--rce:2t.' it1_ew'_c!en'ce for collateral ' purpose. But the doct-zmzeiivt' tentleifetlbb S't_'_1()I/£16! be duly stamped--or=..sl10t§tla' eri:-n;)ly"wi--tI1 the, f'eqttiretn.et1t.$ of Secjtiofz u35V_V_o;}" the __S'r'ctt1z;2__«[email protected], .j.'f 'tdot stampecl, as at V d()c ument c,'¥§;rire:r)t"»b"e rec'eiiiecl in evidence even. for V"t_c'r)'{lt'tteral ~;.§ftie.t',t)z2seﬂu-i'}:{.s'.s' it is duly stctmped or cluty a}'1(1_'_< pceVnaVlk:\_4= tz1*e",I)&£'i'_;'e:1 antler Section 35 of the Stamp 3: ~.

Firm Chm-zi La! tukki Ma! 19. Firm Mukat La! 'V VA'!:V7tctncIc1 and (Jitters, (AIR 1965 All .164) and fCt:a}t;~¢: Sekhar Mism V. Gobinda Chandra Dos. (AIR " A :!966 Ori. 18)).

3 55 under S34 . Where the Court fails to take action under S34 and admits a document in evidence , S35 comes into operati,o'n._4 subject only to the exception provided in S58. The result is .ths;. parties themselves are concerned , the action of the Courti.2td.iiii4tt'i.ngv.sthe ; ii document in evidence is final and subsequent stage of the suit or arising therefrom, and that so far as" the inteirestsjt.oi"ijevenuei"arei4concerned , they are sought to be protected' the power to determine and payable in respect of the inst1'umen€tVis appeal or references and not in the original._ 3.35 comes into operation , the original court loses the _power'i'i_;wot merely to review the document in véevidencealaput also to levy____anvy stamp duty or penalty in respect of the iiistrtinéent.

This court iwhile approving the view expressed by the Andhra Vic'p;ii§a;1eshsings 'Court, AIR 1950 AP 155, SRV Rice Mill v. Takurdas Hi Topciirztltisﬂi that the power of the court of appeal or reference under S.6l Z 56 of the Indian Stamp Act ,corresponding to Section 58 of the Mysore Act, does not take away the finality of the order of the trial court so far as the admissibility of the document in evidence is concerned:"Though under S.58 this court had the power ,while nor reference arising out of the main proceeding before»the.. trial «court in which the questioned document is p1'oduced~i1ji5evidence. ''acting;_su() . mom ,or upon a prayer by the Colleict'or_ to reopenthel,:decisi.on -and call' upon the party producing the docur13_e_ntp"to 'make goodythei stamp duty and the penalty, the particular'hocasevbefore :vltl=1i:s"» court had not been preferred before this_court either' in appeal_ or 'u«ri'de1' a reference from the main proceedingl';'l:ence th'is:'co.ui't declined to act under S.58. In '»';.f'Littarh}i1a, ILR 1999 KAR.-4634, this court has "lspe'i't out the-'procedurelthatl would be required to be followed by the courts -(as fcvoﬁtelmpfi-ated under the provisions of the CPC and as lcontempl-ated"iindier the provisions of the KS Act as follows :

"II. A combined reading of Secriom' 33, 34, 35, 3 7 and 41 of the Kamaraka Stamp Act requires the Z 57 following procedure to be adopted by a Court while considering the question. of admissibility of a document with reference to the Stamp Act; (a) When"-. a document comes up before the Court, it ltas examine and determine whether it is p.t:(>pe'ri'y'L"---- 3' stamped. When the other side objects to .it,----th_:e" . should consider such objection' and 'he_ar. boith side;-i.jl 'V (13) After hearing, if the comes ._to_ the it conclusion that the docun1e';--tt. has been CiMl}:'i.§'Iat:fL}i'3£li it shall proceed to admit "de?L'lltn€IIl tintoieitidence.'

(c) on the other'iha_nd,tol the conclusion that the _e_:t'ocii.rrietit .1-ttarnped or in.s'iiﬁ'ic'ienrtl__v_ .s'tani[ied,-- Ittllli oriler holding that the do:eiinte'nt"is' clulyrstatnj)e'd and determine the .$'taiétp dulty/deficitv stamp duty and penalty to be Vllpaid.and.ﬁx'a"da't=e._to.enable the party who produces thelcdocuznetit to the stamp duty/deficit stamp l he duty plus (d) if the party pays the duty and Efienciiiﬁig the court shall certify that proper amount of

-- han'.dt_petialt_y has been levied and record the natiiej_ and address of the person paying the said ditty 'and. penalty and then admit the docunient in evidence "as provided under Section 41(2); and the Court shall send an authenticated copy of the instrument to the District Registrar together with a Certificate and the amount collected as duty and penalty. as provided 3 58 under Section 37(1); ( e ) if the party does not pay the duty and perzaity, the court will have to pass an order impounding the document and send the instrurnent in original, to the District Registrar for being dealt accordance with law as per Section 37(2) Karnataka Stamp Act. 'H S This court has aiso pointed the» J Secti0n34 of the KS Act 4.9 ofitheb"'~Ré'gisiratioﬁ'Act ,thus: V "13. The di}j"ererice- ':;_¢;1u;-er;"' --.;j[s'e§tt».-:».n 34 of the "S€.'?i:I'0f1 49 of the Regi.s'tration Act.s'hoiiI;:'V..a'i.s~obeiborrze -in mind. Section 34 .s'ay.s' "no A'instrument.ichctr(§eaSb'Ze"with duty shall be admitted in evideitce .fo.:f anyb"'pburpose, or shall be acted upon, V gisteredt o,r'_au.thenttcated by . . . .. unlesx such instrument :.iuty_.s'tan1ped'. Subject to the prot=i_s'i'on enabling the S S' Vi'too:'.:c'ollec't the deﬁcit Stamp Duty, the bar under 34 is' ctbsoiute and an in.s'trument which is not stamped cannot be admitted at all in evidence for Sony purpose. On th.e other hand, Section 49 of the Registration Act which deals with the effect of non-

registration of documents provides' that if a document 5 59 which is required to be registered under law is not registered, then such document shall not affect __any immovable property comprised therein, nor can i't.cr_~irtfer_ any power to adopt nor can it be received as e'v'i-tlet'u_:_'_e A' V any transaction aﬂecting such property o'r.__hc'c;ry'§eri*i.ng such power. But the proviso to~Se.ction.'49 p'roi2i'rleL$ .tt'fv,at an unregistered instrument may be:'*"e.§:eit'ed =as'e1iiden_c'e:1;_' of a contract in a suttfor spet:'ifi'c=perf'oriiéaneel or}as"

evidence of part pe:f(2ri'--na'}"2tce of 'ct,_hc-ontraetifor the purpose of Section 53A of-Tiians'fe»tr_(gf'Pt'i)perty...»'ic't or as evidence ofatzylc'oliater:fIl transa-ctitiinnot required to be effected by registered olrjveriarnple, ifa sale deed 9 e.::ec_'uted::on __a is not stamped, i't can adrrtitiedyittlh eiiideme nor be used for any ;)ur_po.§e_... _aB3ut tff"a'~«.sale deed is executed on requisite h'-stamp not registered and the executant re'fusjes'i.to admitregistration, then the purchaser has a ﬁght toﬁle a suit for speciﬁc performczncre, and rely on theisale deed, even though it was not registered, as = V::'e}iider:tce_:.of the contract sale. Thus, though both Section 343;' the Stamp Act { corresponding to Section 35 of the '*71m'zi;m Stamp Act) and Section 49 of the Registration °"Ac't, both bar the document being received as evidence, the bar is absolute under Stamp Act (unless deficit duty and penalty is paid) and the bar is not absolute under Z Registration Act. "

60

In K B Jayaram and another vs. Navinz2jét!t'rt--r:ti'mt:1,and others, AIR 2003 KARL] 241, this court while case where the trial court had directed the duty' penalty on an agreement of>VsaIe,iiwhic.hi. even at the stage of consideriiitafan pinteriéicpute-gill.'appllicationiVfor temporary injunction no irregularity as such an order was inpconsonatnce ofthe KS Act.

In Kna;mayag.ii;faa;a¢t,f IL_R"x2_0i:03:iKi?t'R;'3716, the plaintiff had filed his afftdavft;'biy a=a}; ofté;;atata.a{tfoa--ta:chfaf and the affidavit would itse]_f a docume'nti'having 'beerr 21 exhibit number, the trial court had accepted the pAaffidavit'as' oral evidence and it was recorded in the order :"shee't«that Elx.P--l to 13-4 are marked and thereafter the case was posit'c.d'7'for "cross-eiixarnination . At this, the defendant had made an application recall the order marking a particular document, as it was alliaatdrnissipbieﬂiin evidence since it was not duly stamped. The trial court on ___cohsiideration of the application found that if the witness had deposed in the Z 61 witness box and if that document was to be marked, the defendant would have had an opporttmity to raise an objection as to its adn':is.si«biiity, which was lost on account of the procedure that was t'o1low'e'd atid':.i:t'heii4efoi'e the recalied the order. It is that order whiehyw'as-que-stio.n'eidihefote» this This court after addressing the several pro'/_is:io_t1s and_-the»p'toeed1ite~.that is contemplated laid down as follows:

"J5. Thereﬁire, ;:7r'();§je'r::iprocediire to be followed by the Coitrts the ttktttrvtztiriiertt of the Code of Civi Pit-t.i§}k'ciure we be '--itti=2rie_r;:fi ::«- ease posted for evidence, the exant'irtti'2'ioh;tn--chie_fi'Qt"'ct'__witrt.ess shall be on ciffidavit itrzl:e--:.'s o_the_rivv!ise",' ~i A 2 "b_) i tiﬁﬁdavit is sought to be filed on _ _ the idc:te"th.e :;:asie._i;s? posted for evidence, the court should _irisist thtit"the____witness whose tiffidcivit is soiight to he _iiﬁiled< évietziters the witness box, takes oath and thereafter hand over the aﬁidczirit eorttctining his/her erciirri-itititioii-in-chief to the Court. In other words, the .. Court should not receive the a_ffi'davi't eotttaining the vvexaminati()n--ih--ehief of a witness by his/her cotmsel, thus preventing the possibility of the witness (tisowmhg such aﬁ'idavit; g 62

c) After the aﬁidavit is received thrr)ttgh'"'the witn.e.s'.s', the Court shall call upon the witness he/she has any documentary evidence to .

the witness tenders any documentary "

shall be received by the C~.-f)'halrtl'Ls'Lz.;'gie<cjt (to.h4ol;;;fectt'art raised by the opposite party;

d) If object1'(2nh.§"o< raised', . should judicially deterrntrte the*'qae§tiart:_.yvhether'~.it~"can he admitted in evid'e--rrce.. or tear, u:.ha»n_d there if the objection relates duty. If the objecti;-9n":2j:5'VL:lorz any athellr .the7c(2art shall follow the the case of K. Anjaneya V Sett}"V'1{$V.l"K;1f:{_. _Ra.n}g.<;_hattt«5etty ' ._ e) . V ':1_'ftlte._hc'a,r{t'r?~ decides" to admit the document, tltené it ¢.Shat_l ')?i;ll::=.1gté'l' the procedure prescribed under ' " Order X1'IllRVttle 4(1) CPC and mark the document. "

glen 'SfSure3l1""v;§. N.Pothe Gowda, this court in an unreported 'a§o'isior1atl¢' 18505/2007 dated 12.4.2010 was considering the cju.§:stior1* Wttaéther 3 document produced along with the plaint or an E' 63 application, but not tendered in evidence, for marking cou.1d be impounded by the trial court, apart from other questions. In answering the same, this court had several stages in production of documents before the of the same while admitting the'iidocu«:r1e'n_t concluded that the question. of section 33 or 34 of the KS only soughtto be admitted in evidence _ V V are answered as "'foi_i_ow's pi ' '~- ., ' _~'~ia)i: __fWhenV.ia'"document which is chargeable with duty, under Kn-rnataka Stamp Act, "1957, but not duly stamped, it admitted in evidence by a court, without any v__objec'tion being raised, is the court obliged to act upon it " all purposes thereafter, without the requirement of payment of duty and penalty? As for instance, can the . court direct the execution of a sale deed in specific 8 64 performance of an agreement of sale, when the agreement is not duly stamped?

~ Once a document has been admitted lexzidence, undieri signature of the court, it is not open eiti:er'_gto*the: ' itself or to a Court of Appe*a14_ or revjsiion laehinlj uvlthatt. order, except as provided in (See:

Section 35 of KS ActV,;"sli.§i1'ueAr supra) Section a challenge against an hellacted upon because it is account, there is no bar against an ins"truin_ent being acted upon after payment of the stamp" dtitySSand*~"'pena1ty according to the procedure p'riescr.i'b.ed.t.by the 'Act'.V This is plain from the terms of Section Act, which lays down that every instrmnent e1i.dors_ed.vhyAithe Deputy Commissionei' under Section 41(1) .. shall beadinissible in evidence and may be acted upon as if it i hasheen duly stamped.

@ 65 A court is prohibited from admitting an instrument in evidence and a court and a public officer are prohibitedg from acting upon it. Thus, a court is prohibited from it in evidence and acting upon it. It follows upon. is not included in the admission and that' a 'eedocunientfscanebe admitted in evidence but not'-actedluporiit L' upon admission, became auton1.at:ic.ali_y_v1iable"to._be_.acted upon, the provision in Section' 34~tha_tVl':*an iri'strurne.nt chargeable with duty but not ditty starnpiedyi ls:hall4Vnot_-be "acted upon by the court, would be irend'e.1{ed'lrcdu-ndant..__upon an instrument is to give {effect toit. (See; Hinduman Steel Ltd. Case, .rz,ip._r_fa and__§irran:.3tbi's case W [LR 1952(2) All 984 ith appro .\i.Tc1.l_i therein) it _VVOrvderXiIIvI___Ruie 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, .l908 "fo'1'":ifies fiosition.

_ "O XHI R 8 : Court may order any document to be impounded . -- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 5 or Rule 7 of this Order or in Order VII", the court may , if it 6 66 sees sufficient cause, direct any document or book produced before it in any suit to be impounded and kept in the custody of an officer of the Court, for such period and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fat."

It is thus clear that any document, pr<)duced:~in« rtuay for sufficient reason, be impounded and dealt. " It may be before or even after a doculrnenttttis Iadlmpitted'-in'evidence. Therefore, on the above reason-i.ng, thoughthe:lad.inis.sibility the document in question in c«anuoti3e raised as rightly held by the ll.l%'lst.l:h.o:Vvtcver, the Court is precluded from:l'avc_tiug;'upon: it: foi1'«.__a11yict'he1* purpose, unless duty land ., ' "C

(b)_%;:lW'hetherl"a' not duly stamped can be admitted in _lo"n..'Vthe plea that it is sought to be produced and I V niarkedfor afeoilateral purpose ?

W" point has arisen for consideration having regard to srhercircumstance pertaining to the case in W? .1902 1/2009. The gldefendants therein had sought to produce and rely upon a joint 8 67 development agreement, (which was claimed as being prior in point of time than the suit agreement) under whi.c'h.i:'t«he"--suit property was the subject matter. It was how.e"\}'er,ccritendedv.4 that since the said agreement was no't"so.ught to ibe':e4iifor'cedli'but A j was only being produced in ejvider2ce_fo--rVa collateral puli-pose' establishing that the suit was the of the same -- Whether the would attract the rigour Of Act is to be considered-_ The canyassed in Avinash Katmai"

Cl2aiii,l_ian_'.s'i therefore, the. question stands answerediua _ A A A .

iother .words_,_,i1he document was admittedly not duly ' ivifherefore the rigour of Section 34 of the KS Act is iattracte_d.i't:i17Vl."lt:;e document cannot be admitted for any purpose. Not even for a collateral purpose.

it :The difference between Section 34 of the KS Act and "Section 49 of the Registration Act should be noted. The bar é 68 under Section 34 is absoiute and an instrument which is not duly stamped cannot be admitted in evidence for any .tp«t1_rpose. On the other hand, Section 49 of the Registration deals with the effect of non--registrati'on.of doc_unient.siiprCiVviides if that if a document which is required.__to*b_e registered is not registered, then suchi"'doc11ment"' imrnovabie property confer any power to adopt nor (A3A.E.l_I,1y:"it.y evidence of any transactiona_ffe{%:t_iing pirop_erty:'iior"conferring such power. But that an unregistered instri:.rneritnia'y. evidence of a contract in a suit for as evidence of a contract in a suit f{:m1sp;§'cifjc perfoifmance or as evidence of part performance of V cwontract"'for--~the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of iPropert_yi'Acti: or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument. " For exampie, if a sale deed is executed on a white paper and

-This not stamped, it can neithg be admitted in evidence nor be 69 used for any purpose. But if a sale deed is executed on requisite stamp paper but is not registered and thevebﬁeicutants refuses to admit registration, then the purchaser;'_has--Ai..av-----ri_§ht_"to file a suit for speciﬁc performancetand rely" on i:t'_'nei"sal'eV deed; .L even though it was not registerediaasievi-derice"of'the»iic'orit:'act for sale. Thus, though boti1,_TSe_ct.ion" the":._;Kf3w~wAict and Sect.ion 49 of the Re,g.ist1'ati,on' the"docuime11t being received as evidence, the biariiits. a'b'sol.uteVi"unu'*er the Stamp Act -- unless deficjtdutfr and pe.n'altyii'arje-- and the bar is not absolute underthe C' See: K. Amarn.arh's case, Hencez it is the petitioner in WP 19021 /2009 to CV_Ol'iI€l1tl that tilie"d0.C_1i1.:nent, which was not duly stamped, could i evidence for a collateral purpose.

._ plea in the Written Statement of the defendant, .._-as tda docuiment not being duly stamped, was sufficient if preclude the trial court from admitting the document in @ 70 evidence, though no objection was taken when the document was actually admitted and marked inVevide_nce?

-- The document in question havin.g.3:alre'afi'ybeen admitted in evidence, though there....w_as alspecilficliobjectiorias raised in the written statement, hot at the" time document was actually mai'Red.,V%l't'h_e "ma: .Co1;rt"cannotconsidei' the question of admissibility. But. iwhether the docuznent can be acted upon by the Court \wf.i.th.ii_i;niia_nswering point a) above which 'would :=have....=to la'pplie:d to the case in WP 10441/2008.

Q15'«..A VVheti1er'ia"e«.doc_uirn,eln.t which is not duly stamped is preserited along with the plaint , or when at a stage before it the document is sought to be tendered and marked in , could the court proceed to impound the V ' '.7 What is the procedure to be followed '.7 _ ,.'_'¥'his"l"lc1uestion need not detain this court for long. It is to is be noticed that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the

-- iii'-Eiiiarnataka Civil Rules of Practice, do provide for the stage of E» 71 suit at which documents shall be produced and the manner of production of the same. As also the procedure to be .fo1i'oW'ed in admitting the same in evidence. While Ord.er"'_ specificaiiy provides for impoundin'g""a"docu_me_nt:io~r._docuine'nts C produced before it, for sufficient reason,_ on such"te;=.mis;_as,yti1eV Court may direct.

It cannot be said documents as are produced and sought to that can be impounded} other reason. In a document, in the very first instariceithcttr-iitjispproducedibefore the Court. In terrnsii"o.if.VSectio_rii KS Act, the moment it comes to t}_re3'.,atterition oi"the__.covttrt, that a document produced in a suit is V pAdvuiy' with duty chargeable, the Court shall impoun d the A same.

Except that a Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court is not C' "required to examine or impound any such document , if he does

-Tinot think fit so to do, excluding proceedings under Chapter X11 8 73 decision of the apex. court in Peteti Subbarao '5 Case , supra nor does it accord with the provisions of the Stamp Act which would be rendered unworkable. As for instance, in avsu'i~tiw.here it may be possible for the Court to pass admissions, under Order XI} Rule; ' T settle the issues or to record evidence',-._a'nd «finds that a document produced the not duly stamped M the mandate ~u_nde.rithe' CA-e.:t, thatiitheii Court shall not act upon such a doctlnient hat'/ei.ito__be ignored. To contetnplfatelyei-. anotheriiisitu'aition,=: if in a given case, an unstarnped dociu then:,spis'l'.iinpo'unded and if the party who seeks to rely it cithe1*._aba:_ndons the proceedings or is not in a to pay "the....d.uty and penalty, the Court would have to ' .:.tai§ere.cou:rseiito s. 37(2) of the KS Act. llence, in so far as the case in WP 3625263/2009 is concerned, there is no infirmity in the triai Court having Hiitnpounded the document and calling upon the plaintiff to pay é 74 duty and penalty. It is for the plaintiff to pay such duty and penalty if the document is to be adrnitted in evidence and is to be acted upon by the trial court. It is only if the'.',:.plainti_ff chooses not to pay the duty and penalty or seeksto"a'aan--don.»_tlie suit itself, that the court is requiredto send ttIe'd-o:ct11lrient.Vto . Deputy Commissioner under Sclc.37.'('2}'t' for 'f11:tthet'»."iﬁtition. During the pendency of the s"ui_t,'the Court would tact under V Order XIII Rule 8 CPC. ..

In the result, the 'pet_ii;io'11ss-disposed of in terms as above. """ . V'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court