Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. As per the aforesaid ratio, a collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document. An important clause or term in the unregistered document which does not constitute collateral transaction cannot be admitted in evidence.

11. Coming to the unstamped instruments, section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides that an instrument chargeable with duty shall not be admitted in evidence for any purpose or shall be acted upon, unless such instrument is duly stamped. The proviso found thereunder reads that such an instrument which was not duly stamped shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty chargeable on the instrument with penalty adumbrated thereunder.

12. But, once an unstamped instrument is admitted in evidence, it shall not be called in question at any stage of the proceedings of the suit on the ground that it has not been duly stamped as per section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In other words, if the admissibility of an unstamped document is not questioned when it is tendered and marked, it cannot be recalled from the records. The Trial Court also ceases to have jurisdiction to reject the document at a later stage of the suit on the sole ground that the instrument was not duly stamped. The plea that the unstamped instrument was wrongly admitted cannot be sustained in view of the embargo found under section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899.

14. There is no provision under the Registration Act similar to section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to debar future challenge of an instrument already admitted. When the admissibility of the unregistered document, Ex.B1 is challenged by the plaintiff, then the defendant has to establish that the said unregistered document has been marked to establish a collateral transaction which transaction does not require registration.

15. It is not as if the party who marks an unstamped document can go scot free without payment of the stamp duty due under the instrument forever. As per section 61 of the Indian stamp Act, 1899, if the appellate court is of the opinion that such instrument should not have been admitted in evidence, without payment of duty and penalty, the appellate court can determine the amount of duty chargeable and impound the instrument and record a declaration to that effect and send the instrument to the Collector for collecting stamp duty on the instrument.

17. In the instant case, true it is that the Trial Court had mechanically marked Ex.B1 which is an unstamped and unregistered xerox copy of the release deed. Of course, now it is brought to the notice of this court that the original unstamped and unregistered release deed has been marked as Ex.B4. At any rate, the court should have been alert while Ex.B1 was produced by the defendant during the course of cross-examination of PW1. Now, the stamp duty can be collected only when an appeal is preferred before the appellate forum in terms of section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. If appeal has not been preferred by either of the parties, the question of invocation of section 61 of the Stamp Act would not arise and the defendant would go scot free without paying the stamp duty on the instrument which was already produced before the court. Anyway, the aforesaid ratio reiterates the irretrievable situation arisen out of marking of an unstamped document in terms of section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.