Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The Court below has dismissed the I.A. by referring to Sections 17(1)(b) and 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with the following observations:-

8) kDjhuH/gpujpthjpahy; FwpaPL nra;jpl Ntz;b jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l ,k;kDtpy; fle;j 13.06.1990k; Njjpapl;l gjpT nra;ag;glhj Mtzj;ij nghWj;jtiu ,e;jpa gjpT rl;lk;

7. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court in Thangamuthu and others Vs. A.Jeyaraj, 2020 (1) CTC 47. A reference is made to paragraph No.14, wherein, the Court has held that where an instrument is improperly not stamped, such instrument cannot be admitted in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Paragraph No.14 from the above Judgment reads as under:-

14. The Judgments that have been cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent may not come to his aid, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those Judgments has categorically held that in view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, the document, which falls under the said provision, shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever.