2008 (2) TMI 391 - SC - Indian Laws

The Stamp Act, 1899 nowhere prescribes any expiry date for use of a stamp paper. Section 54 merely provides that a person possessing a stamp paper for which he has no immediate use (which is not spoiled or rendered unfit or useless), can seek refund of the value thereof by surrendering such stamp paper to the Collector provided it was purchased within the period of six months next preceding the date on which it was so surrendered. The stipulation of the period of six months prescribed in Section 54 is only for the purpose of seeking refund of the value of the unused stamp paper, and not for use of the stamp paper. Section 54 does not require the person who has purchased a stamp paper, to use it within six months. Therefore, there is no impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to the proposed date of execution, being used for a document. The Stamp Rules, 1925 applicable to Tamil Nadu, do not contain any provision that the stamp papers of required value should be purchased together from the same vendor with consecutive serial numbers.

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the agreement of sale executed on two stamp papers purchased on different dates.
2. Justification of the first appellate court in comparing the disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression without expert opinion.
3. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the judgment of the first appellate court in the second appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re: Issue (i) - Validity of the Agreement on Different Stamp Papers:

The trial court and the High Court doubted the genuineness of the agreement dated 5.1.1980 because it was written on two stamp papers purchased on 25.8.1973 and 7.8.1978. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not prescribe any expiry date for the use of a stamp paper. Section 54 of the Act only deals with the refund of the value of unused stamp paper if surrendered within six months of purchase. The court noted that there is no impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to the proposed date of execution being used for a document. The Stamp Rules in Tamil Nadu do not require consecutively numbered stamp papers purchased on the same day for an instrument not intended to be registered. Even if the use of such stamp papers is an irregularity, the document cannot be deemed invalid solely on that ground. An agreement executed on plain paper could be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty under sections 35 or 37 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Therefore, the use of old stamp papers, even if irregular, does not invalidate the agreement.

Re: Issue (ii) - Comparison of Thumb Impressions without Expert Opinion:

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allows the court to consider the opinion of experts on matters such as identity of handwriting or finger impressions. Section 73 allows the court to compare disputed finger impressions with admitted ones. The court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted ones, but such comparison without expert assistance is considered hazardous and risky. The court should not base its finding solely on its own comparison without expert opinion, especially if the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague, or not clear. In this case, the first defendant denied having put her finger impression on Ex. A-1. The High Court found the thumb mark in Ex. A-1 to be pale and not clear. The first appellate court's finding that there were no marked differences between the two thumb impressions was unsound because it was based on a casual perusal without expert opinion. The High Court was justified in interfering with the first appellate court's finding.

Re: Issue (iii) - High Court's Reversal of the First Appellate Court's Judgment:

The trial court had analyzed the evidence properly and dismissed the suit by giving cogent reasons. The first appellate court wrongly placed the onus on the defendants to prove that the agreement was forged or concocted. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish that the first defendant had executed the agreement. The plaintiff attempted to discharge this burden by examining himself, the scribe, and one of the attesting witnesses. However, the various circumstances enumerated by the trial court and High Court, such as the use of old stamp papers, the unclear thumb impression, and the possession of the property, created doubt about the genuineness of the agreement. The High Court's decision to reverse the first appellate court's judgment was justified.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the High Court's decision. The agreement of sale on old stamp papers was not invalid, but the comparison of thumb impressions without expert opinion was unsound. The High Court correctly reversed the first appellate court's judgment, and the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the agreement.

← Previous Next →