9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Admissibility of unstamped documents in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Analysis: The revision pertains to the admission of two unregistered documents, an unregistered sale deed, and an unregistered adoption deed, subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The petitioner sought to use these documents to prove the signature of the plaintiff for a different purpose, i.e., to establish the plaintiff's signature in a will. The subordinate Judge held that the documents could not be admitted as evidence without proper stamping and directed payment of stamp duty and penalty for their admission. The petitioner relied on a Rangoon High Court decision, contending that only the signatures in the documents were being relied upon for a collateral matter. However, the amicus curiae argued that unstamped documents cannot be admitted for any purpose. The court examined the provisions of Section 35, emphasizing the requirement of stamping to prevent loss of revenue and the admissibility of documents under the proviso (a) of the section upon payment of deficit duty and penalty. The court referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Ram Rattan v. Parma Nand, which clarified the scope of Section 35, stating that unstamped instruments are inadmissible for any purpose. It highlighted that the prohibition applies regardless of the purpose for which the document is sought to be used, including collateral purposes. The court distinguished the effect of non-registration under the Indian Registration Act from the stamping requirement under Section 35, emphasizing the absolute bar on admitting unstamped instruments. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that only signatures were being relied upon, emphasizing that any part of a document chargeable with duty cannot be admitted in evidence under Section 35. The court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the admissibility of the unstamped documents. The court expressed gratitude to the amicus curiae for their assistance and granted a month's time for the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty. The judgment underscores the strict application of Section 35 to ensure proper stamping of chargeable instruments for their admissibility in evidence, irrespective of the purpose for which they are sought to be used.
|
