IMPORTANT POINT
If no objection is made in regard to admissibility of a document on question of insufficiency of stamp, party cannot be permitted at later stage to contend that document is inadmissible and needs to be impounded.

Headnote:Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 36 (As amended by State of West Bengal by Act, 1990) - Court not to reopen a matter in regard to sufficiency or otherwise of stamp duty paid on an instrument in the event same having been admitted in evidence - Development agreement dated 16-1-1995 was admitted in evidence in a suit for specific performance and was exhibited on 17-2-2003 - Appellant defendant filed an application on 16-2-2005 for recalling order dated 17-2-2003 and for sending said document to collector for impounding - Trial court dismissed the application - Appeal and their revision before High Court were also dismissed - Appeal - If no objection had been made by appellant in regard to admissibility of said document, he could not be permitted at a later stage to turn around and contend document to be inadmissible - High Court committed no error in dismissing the revision.
       Held : It is not in dispute that Development Agreement dated 16.1.1995 was typed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/-. It was also not registered. We, however, in this matter are not concerned with the effect of non-registration of the said instrument. There is no doubt or dispute that in terms of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, as amended by the State of West Bengal, a duty is cast upon the authorities concerned including the Courts to impound a document where the instrument produced before it is insufficiently stamped . When a deficiency in stamp duty is brought to the notice of the Collector or it otherwise comes to his notice, he may call for the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy placed thereon and proceed to deal with the instrument in terms of Section 38 thereof.(Para 14)
       Section 36, however, provides for a stand alone clause. It categorically prohibits a court of law from reopening a matter in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument in the event the same has been admitted in evidence. Only one exception has been made in this behalf, viz., the provisions contained in Section 61 providing for reference and revision. In a case where Section 33 of the Act, as amended by West Bengal Act would be applicable, the proviso appended to Sub-Section (5) carves out an exception that if no action would be taken after a period of four years from the date of execution of the instrument.(Para 15)
       If no objection had been made by Appellant herein in regard to the admissibility of the said document, he, at a later stage, cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the said document is inadmissible in evidence.(Para 21)
       It may be true that the object of Indian Stamp Act is to collect revenue and the amendments carried out by the State of West Bengal provides for more stringent steps in that behalf . It may also be true that by reason of Sub-Section (4) of Section 33 of the West Bengal Act, a duty has been cast upon the court to apply its mind when an instrument having insufficient stamp duty is brought to its notice, but, only thereby Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be made inapplicable . Section 36, as indicated hereinbefore, applies on its own force.(Para 24)
       For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed no error in dismissing the revisional application as also the review application filed by Appellant herein. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with costs.(Para 33)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act), as amended in the State of West Bengal by Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the West Bengal Act), falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 5th May, 2006, whereby and whereunder the Review Application filed by Appellant herein from and order dated 13.4.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat was dismissed.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The parties hereto entered into an agreement to develop the suit property. Disputes and differences having arisen between them in regard to the purported termination of the said agreement by Appellant, a Suit was filed by Respondent herein for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of the Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah on 10.1.1997. An interim order of injunction was passed in the suit, which although was affirmed by the Appellate Court, but has been set aside by the Revisional Court. Respondent thereafter filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on 8.1.1999, inter alia, which was marked as Title Suit No.4 of 1999, praying for the following reliefs :

"i)A decree to be passed for specific performance of Contract Agreement dated 16th day of January, 1995 directing thereby the defendant to perform his part of the contract by way of rendering the exclusive right to the plaintiff to have free access into the suit property for raising rest of the construction in respect of second and third floors of the suit premises and to execute a registered deed or deeds of conveyance in respect of flats to be completed in the second floor and third floor of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of his nominees on receipt of balance consideration thereof and commanding the defendant to extend all sorts of cooperation with the plaintiff as would be required for construction of the plaintiffs allocation in respect of second and third floor of the suit premises.

ii)A Decree for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant and his authorised non and agents from interfering with the act of construction of the plaintiff in respect of his own allocation relating to second and third floor of the suit premises and/or from parting with the possession of the super built structures of the second floor and two garages in the ground floor or any part thereof in favour of any third party till final disposal of the suit."

4. Respondent herein filed the aforementioned Development Agreement dated 16.1.995. The same was exhibited without any objection on the part of Appellant herein on 17.02.2003. The parties also adduced their respective evidences. 16.2.2005 was the date fixed for argument in the suit on which date Appellant filed two applications: (1) for recalling the order dated 17.2.2003; and (2) for sending the said documents to the Collector for impounding thereof in terms of Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act.

5. By an order dated 13.4.2005, the learned Trial Judge rejected both the applications. A Revisional Application filed by Appellant before the High Court has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 28.2.2006. A review petition was filed by Appellant was also dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 5.5.2006.

6. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for Appellant, inter alia, submitted that the learned courts below committed a manifest error in relying on Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, which cannot be said to have any application in the instant case, in view of the amendment made by the State of West Bengal therein, which came into force on 31.1.1994. It was further submitted that in the decision of this Court in Javer Chand & Ors. vs. Pukhraj Surana [AIR 1961 SC 1655], whereupon the courts below relied upon, it had no occasion to consider the purport and object of the State Act, viz, that the st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 950

IMPORTANT POINTIf no objection is made in regard to admissibility of a document on question of insufficiency of stamp, party cannot be permitted at later stage to contend that document is inadmissible and needs to be impounded.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
If no objection is made in regard to admissibility of a document on question of insufficiency of stamp, party cannot be permitted at later stage to contend that document is inadmissible and needs to be impounded.