9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on all the authorities to impound a document. The court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect thereto. The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid. The court, therefore, was empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 35 of the Act. The contention of ld counsel for the appellant that the document was admissible for collateral purpose, in our opinion, is not correct. Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes. The view we have taken finds support from the decision of the Privy Council in Ram Rattan v. Parmananad [ 1945 (12) TMI 5 - PRIVY COUNCIL] where it was held that That the words for any purpose in Section 35 of the Stamp Act should be given their natural meaning and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion. In the matter the agreement of sell produced is valued ₹ 2,70,000/- which as per Article 23 of Indian Stamp Act and as per Schedule 5, on the said amount stamp duty of 5.6% is leviable and the 7.5% of ₹ 2,70,000/- comes to ₹ 20,250/-. In the agreement to sell ₹ 60/- is mentioned as stamp which means reducing the ₹ 20,250 - ₹ 60 = ₹ 20,190 is less stamp duty paid, 10 times penalty of which will be leviable as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act means ₹ 201900/- stamp duty will be leviable. In this regard relevant case law is Kapur Constructions vs. Lita Nagraj and Ors., AIR 2005 Karnataka 032. The plaintiff has paid ₹ 20,850/- in the C.C.D. so the rest of the amount of ₹ 181050 be deposited within the next date of hearing and the Opposite Party shall also file its counter reply by the next date of hearing. 6. As noticed hereinbefore the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment refused to interfere with the said order. 7. Mr. A.K. Bajpai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount indicated in that Schedule as the proper duty therefor, respectively, that is to say- (a) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in India on or after the first day of July, 1899; (b) every bill of exchange payable otherwise than on demand or promissory note drawn or made out of India on or after that day and accepted or paid, or resented for acceptance or payment, or endorsed, transferred or otherwise negotiated, in India; and (c) every instrument (other than a bill of exchange or promissory note) mentioned in that Schedule, which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of India on or after that day, relates to any property situate, or to any matter or thing done or to be done, in 8 [India] and is received in India. Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in respect of- (1) any instrument executed by, or on behalf of, or in favour of, the Government incases where, but for this exemption, the Government would be liable to pay the duty chargeable in respect of such instrument; (2) any instrument for the sale, transfer or other disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it; (c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act. 11. Section 36 of the Act provides that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 21 thereof, be called in question at any stage of same suit or proceeding on the ground that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed, but having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve the legislature thought it necessary to levy stamp duty on an instrument whereby possession has been transferred. The validity of the said provision is not in question. 16. It is not in dispute that the possession of the property had been delivered in favour of the appellant. He has, thus, been exercising some right in or over the land in question. We are not concerned with the enforcement of the said agreement. Although the same was not registered, but registration of the document has nothing to do with the validity thereof as provided for under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 17. We have noticed heretobefore that Section 33 of the Act casts a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound a document. The court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect thereto. 18. The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid. The court, therefore, was empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 35 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 21. Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes. 22. The view we have taken finds support from the decision of the Privy Council in Ram Rattan v. Parmananad, [AIR 1946 PC 51] wherein it was held :- That the words for any purpose in Section 35 of the Stamp Act should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose and that an unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for the purpose of determining even the factum of partition as distinct from its terms. The said decision has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an unstamped instrument whatever be the nature of the purpose or however foreign or independent the purpose may be for which it is sought to be used, unless there is compliance with the requirements of the provisos to Section 35. In other words if an unstamped instrument is admitted for a collateral purposes. It would amount to receiving such a document in evidence for a purpose which Section 35 prohibits. There is nothing in the case of B. Rangaiah v. B. Rangaswamy, (1970) 2 Andh WR 181 which supports the contention of the petitioner. That was a case as pointed out by Kuppuswami, J., where there were two instruments though contained in one document one a settlement in favour of the 4th defendant therein and the other a will. It was therefore held that part of the instrument which constitutes a will did not require any stamp and will be admissible in evidence for proving the bequest contained therein. It was for that reason that the learned Judge said that Sec. 35 of the Stamp Act has no application to a case where one of the separate instruments relating to one such matters would not at all be chargeable under the Act as in the case before him. In T. Bhaskar Rao v. T. Gab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
