2016 (1) TMI 1507 - HC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of application to impound the unregistered sale deed, dated 05.09.1994 executed by Srinivasa Pillai in favour of the revision petitioner, for the purpose of paying stamp duty penalty - HELD THAT - The sale deed in question has to be properly stamped and registered before the competent authority and if the sale deed is not duly stamped, the defect cannot be cured under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and it is also not admissible in evidence, since it conveys title of the property to the transferee. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/D2 that the above sale deed has to be impounded for paying stamp duty and penalty and to be registered and marked, is not sustainable. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court - The Civil Revision is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Impounding unregistered sale deed for stamp duty and penalty payment.

Analysis:
1. The Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order dismissing the application to impound an unregistered sale deed for paying stamp duty penalty. The revision petitioner argued that the lower Court failed to consider the purpose of impounding the document for stamp duty and penalty payment. The Court dismissed the application on the grounds that the document cannot be admitted in evidence unless properly stamped or penalty is paid under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

2. The revision petitioner relied on various legal precedents to support their argument, emphasizing the admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes. The Court referred to previous judgments highlighting that unstamped and unregistered sale deeds could be permitted to be marked for collateral purposes, provided they are adequately stamped. The Court noted that the document in question needed to be properly stamped and registered before being admissible in evidence.

3. The respondents contended that the trial Court correctly dismissed the application based on relevant legal provisions. They referred to a Division Bench decision emphasizing that unstamped documents cannot be admitted for any purpose, including collateral purposes. The Court cited multiple rulings to support the position that unstamped and unregistered documents cannot be looked into for any purpose, and oral evidence cannot be admitted based on such documents.

4. The Court analyzed Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act, emphasizing the requirement for proper stamping and registration of documents, especially sale deeds. The Court concluded that the sale deed in question must be properly stamped and registered, as per the Acts, to be admissible in evidence. The argument that the document needed to be impounded for stamp duty, penalty payment, and registration was deemed unsustainable.

5. Ultimately, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial Court's order and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. The decision was based on the legal provisions governing stamp duty and registration requirements for documents like sale deeds. The Court upheld the trial Court's decision, citing the inapplicability of the precedents relied on by the revision petitioner and the relevance of the decision cited by the respondents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in impounding unregistered sale deeds for stamp duty and penalty payment, emphasizing the importance of proper stamping and registration for document admissibility.