Dismissed

Pallanta Chandra Rao v. Pallanta Venkata Ramana

Telangana HC16 Apr 2010CRP/729/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order excluding a usufructuary mortgage deed as inadmissible because it was insufficiently stamped. The court noted that despite the lack of stamp duty, the document remained inadmissible even for collateral purposes under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The court dismissed the revision without finding any illegality in the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; no interference with impugned order excluding the unstamped document. Liberty to impound the document if the petitioner chooses.

Pallanta Chandra Rao Vs Pallanta Venkata Ramana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶6

C.R.P.No.729 OF 2010

¶7

Between:-

¶8

Pallantla Chandra Rao

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

A n d

¶11

Pallantla Venkata Ramana and others

¶12

…Respondents

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.729 OF 2010

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-10-2009 in O.S.No.461 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the document, which is stated to be an unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed filed by the defendant, was held to be inadmissible in evidence in view of the bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

¶16

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶17

petitioner/1^st defendant. None appeared for the

¶18

respondent/plaintiff, though served with notice. The other respondents/defendants 2 to 4 are stated to be not necessary parties. Perused the record.

¶19

3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner/D-1 and respondents 2 to 4 (D-2 to D-4). During the course of trial, the petitioner/defendant sought to exhibit the document which is stated to be usufructuary mortgage deed in order to show his possession of the suit land.

¶20

The plaintiff objected for the same on the ground that the document being usufructuary mortgage deed and compulsorily registerable is not admissible in evidence.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/D-1 would submit that the petitioner/D-1 is not seeking any relief under the document and it is sought to be exhibited in evidence only for collateral purpose showing the nature of possession.

¶22

5. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act contains a bar as to the admissibility of instrument which is insufficiently stamped and states as follows:-

¶23

35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in

¶24

evidence etc. - No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of party’s authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped:

¶25

Provided that-

¶26

(a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable [with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise] only or a bill of exchange or promissory note, [or acknowledgement or delivery order], shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty 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;

¶27

(b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, it 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;

¶28

(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;

¶29

(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 :

¶30

(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 1[Government], or where it bears the certificate of the

¶31

Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provisions of this Act.

¶32

6. In a decision in ‘AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN

¶33

VS. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHR A^[1] ’ , the Apex Court held that ‘inadequate stamp duty on the unregistered deed of sale was not admissible in evidence, even for collateral purpose under Section 35 of the Stamp Act.

¶34

7. Thus, it can be seen that the bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act is total and absolute and the words

¶35

“any purpose” contained in the said provision mean every purpose including a collateral purpose. Even if the document is sought to be accepted for collateral purpose, still the same is inadmissible in evidence on account of the absolute bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Even if the bar contained in Section 49 of the Registration Act does not come into play, still in view of the bar contained in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the document is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. The trial Court has observed that the document cannot be admitted unless it is impounded, as envisaged in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. It is open to the petitioner/D-1 to take necessary steps for impounding the said document if he chooses to do so.

¶36

8. The impugned order does not suffer from any

¶37

illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶38

9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed with liberty as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶40

Dated 16^th April, 2010

¶41

Lrkm.

¶42

[1] AIR 2009 SC 1489

Pallanta Chandra Rao v. Pallanta Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallanta Chandra Rao v. Pallanta Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United Phosphorus Ltd., Guntur, rep. by its Accountant and Vs M/s. Jaikisan Seeds, rep. by its Prop. Pothureddy Krishna

J.Bhagwandas Vs The State of a.P.Through S.H.O.Madannapet P.S.

Feroz Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jada Pydappadu Vs Mannala Appanna

The Food Inspector Division - I Vs Jaikumar Patro

Sandipogula Thupan Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by its Public Prosecutor