1971 (1) TMI 111 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of secondary evidence of a written agreement under the Indian Stamp Act.
2. Specific performance of an agreement to lease.
3. Recovery of possession and damages for illegal occupation.
4. Future mesne profits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Secondary Evidence:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether the reception of secondary evidence of a written agreement to grant a lease is barred by the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act. The appellant argued that secondary evidence should be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act if the original document, which was insufficiently stamped, was suppressed by the defendants. The court, however, found that the Indian Evidence Act does not deal with the admissibility of documents requiring stamps under the Indian Stamp Act. Section 35 of the Stamp Act clearly bars the admission of any instrument chargeable with duty unless it is duly stamped. Furthermore, secondary evidence of such an instrument cannot be admitted as it would be tantamount to acting upon the insufficiently stamped document, which is prohibited. The court upheld that secondary evidence of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, which only applies to original instruments admitted without objection.

2. Specific Performance of an Agreement to Lease:
The appellant sought specific performance of an agreement to lease dated January 6, 1957. The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance, holding that the plaintiffs had not proved the agreement's execution. However, the Subordinate Judge overturned this decision, accepting the oral evidence and decreeing specific performance. The High Court, in second appeal, held that the oral evidence regarding the agreement to lease was inadmissible due to the insufficient stamp on the original document. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that secondary evidence of an insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted.

3. Recovery of Possession and Damages for Illegal Occupation:
Respondents 1 and 2 instituted suits for recovery of possession and damages for illegal occupation after the expiry of the old lease. The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of possession and awarded damages. The Subordinate Judge set aside these decrees, but the High Court reinstated them, holding that the oral evidence of the agreement to lease was inadmissible. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, reiterating that secondary evidence of an insufficiently stamped document is inadmissible.

4. Future Mesne Profits:
The respondents filed an application for a direction to add a relief for future mesne profits from the date of the suit to the decree. The Supreme Court dismissed this application, noting that the respondents had stated in their plaint that they would file a separate suit for future mesne profits, and the courts below did not grant such relief based on this statement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that secondary evidence of an insufficiently stamped document is inadmissible under the Indian Stamp Act. The court also denied the respondents' application for future mesne profits, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.