Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (12) TMI 767 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of Statute - Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 - suit filed for recovery - document was admissible for collateral purpose or not. HELD THAT:- Indisputably an instrument was executed. By reason of such an instrument not only the entire amount of consideration was paid but possession of the property had also been transferred - The explanation has been inserted by M.P. Act 19 of 1989. By reason of the said provision, thus, a legal fiction has been created. Although ordinarily an agreement to sell would not be subject to payment of stamp duty which is payable on a sale 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. We have noticed hereinbefore 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. 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 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. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which fails and is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
|