important point
Provisions of Indian Stamp Act, Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 and the Evidence Act apply only to a document which is an instrument within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Stamp Act, and not to a copy of an instrument.

Headnote:(a)Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Sections 33, 35 and 2(14) – An instrument within the meaning of section 2(14), which is not duly stamped, can be impounded and taken into evidence after payment of the required fee and penalty – These provisions are not concerned with any copy of the instrument – Law is well settled that copy of the instrument cannot be validated by impounding and this cannot be admitted as secondary evidence under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. (Paras 8 and 10)
       AIR 1962 SC 110; AIR 1971 SC 1070 – Relied upon.
       (b)Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 37 r/w Rule 19, Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 – An instrument within the meaning of section 2(14), and not copy, if affixed with stamp of improper description; attracts section 37 – Collector of Stamp is authorized to receive the proper stamp duty on an instrument which bears a stamp of proper amount but of improper description, whereafter he would certify that the instrument is duly stamped – However, the document in question being a copy and thus not an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14), these provisions will not be applicable instantly . (Para 13)
       (c)Indian Stamp Act (MP Amendment), 1990 – Section 48-B – Section 48-B authorizes the Collector to recover the adequate stamp duty which has been avoided at the time of execution of the original instrument – Exercise of this power is restricted to a period of five years from the date of execution of the original instrument – But the Collector is not authorized to impound the copy of the instrument . (Para 15)
       Facts of the case:
       1.Maganlal Jain was the original tenant of Prakash Chand Malviya, the respondent-landlord. Maganlal Jain had given the shop to the appellant for carrying out the business. On a dispute being arisen between the respondent-landlord, the original tenant Maganlal Jain and the appellant herein, an agreement was executed by the respondent (landlord) and the appellant (subsequent tenant). The agreement provided for an advance by the tenant and also terms for eviction but was affixed with a notarial stamp of Rs. 4/- and thus was improperly stamped.
       2.The respondent-landlord filed an eviction suit stating the bona fide need for the use of the accommodation by his elder son. The appellant-tenant, pleading that his copy of the agreement was stolen, prayed for receipt of the photocopy of the agreement as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
       3.The trial court allowed the application for admission of the photocopy of the document and admitted it as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act.
       4.On remission from High Court, trial court ordered impounding of the document on ground of being insufficiently stamped; and its resubmission after rectifying the defect.
       5.High Court held that the photocopy of the agreement, original of which is lost, cannot be admitted in evidence; and that such a document can neither be impounded nor accepted in secondary evidence.
       6.High Court’s judgment was upheld.
       Findings of the Court:
       Section 48-B of the Indian Stamp Act (MP Amendment), 1990 authorizes the Collector to recover the adequate stamp duty which has been avoided at the time of execution of the original instrument; but not to impound the copy of the instrument .
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942, and the Evidence Act apply exclusively to instruments that qualify as "instruments" within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Stamp Act. These provisions do not extend to copies of instruments (!) .
An instrument, as defined, refers to the original document that creates, transfers, or records rights or liabilities. A copy of such an instrument is not considered an instrument under the Stamp Act and cannot be validated or impounded as an instrument (!) .
The law clearly states that a copy of an instrument cannot be validated by impounding or admitted as secondary evidence under the Stamp Act. This is because secondary evidence of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped original instrument is not permissible unless the original is produced and properly stamped (!) (!) (!) .
When an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description, provisions under the Stamp Act and Rules allow the Collector to certify the document as duly stamped upon payment of the proper duty. However, these provisions only apply to original instruments, not copies (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Madhya Pradesh Stamp (M.P. Amendment) Act, 1990, introduced Section 48-B, which permits the Collector to require the production of the original instrument when a deficiency of stamp duty is noticed from a copy. This section does not authorize the impounding of copies but only the production of original documents for verification (!) (!) .
The authority to impound or act upon a document is limited to original instruments. The impounding of copies or secondary evidence is not supported under the Stamp Act or the Rules, and the law emphasizes that only original instruments, properly stamped, are admissible in evidence (!) (!) .
In cases where a document is improperly stamped, the proper course involves paying the requisite duty and obtaining certification from the Collector that the instrument is duly stamped. This process does not include impounding or validating copies that are not original instruments (!) (!) .
The provisions for recovery of stamp duty or penalties are restricted to original instruments. When deficiencies are identified from copies, the Collector's role is limited to demanding the original for inspection rather than impounding or validating the copy (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework underscores that only original, properly stamped instruments are relevant for impounding, validation, or secondary evidence purposes. Copies of instruments, especially when original documents are lost or unstamped, cannot be validated or admitted as evidence under the Stamp Act (!) (!) (!) .
The case-specific facts involve an agreement that was improperly stamped with a notarized stamp of Rs. 4/- instead of the required Rs. 1/-. The courts held that such a document, being an original instrument with improper description, could be rectified through certification by the Collector if the proper duty was paid, but copies or secondary evidence could not be substituted or validated as original instruments (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal principles affirm that only original instruments, duly stamped, can be impounded, validated, or admitted as evidence. Copies or secondary evidence are not considered instruments under the Stamp Act and cannot be validated by impounding or certification unless they are the original document itself.

judgment

P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.The facts necessary for deciding the question involved in the case are that one Maganlal Jain was the original tenant of Prakash Chand Malviya, the respondent-landlord. Maganlal Jain had given the shop to the appellant for carrying out the business. On a dispute being arisen between the respondent-landlord, the original tenant Maganlal Jain and the appellant herein, an agreement was executed on 28.3.1988 by the respondent (landlord) and the appellant (subsequent tenant), whereby the landlord tenanted the shop to the appellant on payment of an advance amount of Rs.4,75,000/- which was received by the landlord in cash in front of the witnesses. The agreement further provided that in case the landlord requires eviction of the tenant from the shop he will have to give notice of 6 months to the tenant and will also refund the payment of Rs.4,75,000/- to the tenant. On the other hand, if the tenant wants to vacate the shop he will have to give prior notice of 6 months to the landlord and the landlord will pay back Rs.4,75,000/- to the tenant. This document was affixed with a notarial stamp of Rs.4/-. Under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’), agreement of this nature requires affixture of a stamp of Re.1/- under Schedule I, Item 42 of the said Act.

3.On 12.5.2003 a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent-landlord before the Civil Judge, Bhopal under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, stating the bonafide need for the use of the accommodation by his elder son. It was the case of the appellant-tenant that the original copy of the agreement which was with him was stolen and thus he was unable to produce the original document dated 28.3.1988, but was in possession of a photostat copy of the agreement and made a prayer for receipt of the photocopy of the agreement as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial court allowed the application for admission of the photocopy of the document and admitted it as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act.

4.On being aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the respondent-landlord filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the trial court and remitted the matter back to decide the question as to whether a photocopy of an improperly stamped original document can be received in secondary evidence. After hearing the parties, the trial court by its order dated 9.8.2005 ordered that the document be impounded, it being insufficiently stamped; the document was sent to the Collector of Stamps for affixing appropriate stamp duty and thereafter for sending the document back to the court. This order was challenged by the respondent in a review petition which was dismissed by the trial court. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before the High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated 3.5.2006 held that the impugned document which is a photocopy of the agreement, original of which is lost, cannot be admitted in evidence; and that such a document can neither be impounded nor can be accepted in secondary evidence.

5.It is an admitted fact that the photostat copy which is sought to be produced as secondary evidence does not show that on the original agreement proper stamp duty was paid. The photostat copy of the agreement shows that the original agreement carried only a notarial stamp of Rs.4/-. Thus the original instrument bears the stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description. From the facts of the case, the issue which requires consideration is: Whether the court can impound the photocopy of the instrument (document) of improper description exercising its power under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899?. For answering this question, Sections 33 and 35 of the Act might render some help. Relevant extracts of the Sections are :

“33. Examination and impounding of instruments (1) Every person by law or conse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1292

important pointProvisions of Indian Stamp Act, Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 and the Evidence Act apply only to a document which is an instrument within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Stamp Act, and not to a copy of an instrument.

Cases Referred (2)

important point
Provisions of Indian Stamp Act, Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 and the Evidence Act apply only to a document which is an instrument within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Stamp Act, and not to a copy of an instrument.