L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 10. 7. 2001 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District, in LA. No. 162 of 2001 in O. S. No. 44 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction. According to him, he purchased the suit schedule property from the petitioners through a saledeed dated 13. 6. 1996. The petitioners contended that the respondent is yet to pay part of consideration, and, in that view of the matter, he was not delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. It was in this context, that the respondent intended to rely upon an agreement of sale dated 23. 4,1996 said to have been executed between them.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed LA. No. 195 of 2001 calling upon the petitioners herein to produce the agreement of sale dated 23. 4. 1996 said to have been executed between them. He pleaded that the original of the agreement of sale was taken by the petitioners at the time of execution of the sale-deed on 13. 6. 1996. The petitioners did not agree with the contention of the respondent. It was in that context that the respondent filed LA. No. 162 of 2001 under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to receive the Xerox copy of the said agreement of sale, as secondary evidence. The petitioners resisted the application on several grounds. According to them, Xerox copy of an agreement of sale cannot be admitted in evidence. They also pleaded that even otherwise, stamp duty cannot be collected on the Xerox copy of an agreement of sale. Reliance was placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. Through the order under revision, the Trial Court allowed the LA. , and, received the Xerox copy of the agreement of sale dated 23. 4. 1996, as secondary evidence.

( 4 ) SRI M. Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Xerox copy was not at all admissible in evidence, not being secondary evidence, within the ambit of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence act. His further contention is that the original of the agreement of sale was not stamped at all, and, the question of collecting stamp duty on a Xerox copy does not arise. He relies upon the judgment of the supreme Court in Jupudi v. Pulavarthi, AIR 1971 SC 1070, and, a judgment of this court in Akkam Laxmi v. Thosha Bhoomaiah, 2002 (4) ALD 808.

( 5 ) THE application filed by the respondent was under Section 65 of the evidence Act to receive the Xerox copy of an agreement of sale as secondary evidence. An important objection raised on behalf of the petitioners is that an agreement of sale is liable for levy of stamp duty under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, and, that the question of collecting said stamp duty on a Xerox copy does not arise. In jupudi v. Pulavarthi (supra), the Honourable supreme Court categorically held that stamp duty cannot be collected on a copy of document, if the original was not subjected to stamp duty at all. The Honourable supreme Court in turn placed reliance on the judgment of the Privy Council in Raja of bobbili v. Inuganti China Sitaramaswami gam, (1900) ILR 23 Mad. 49. The same principle was adopted by this Court in Akkam laxmi v. Thosha Bhoomaiah (supra ).

( 6 ) IF it were to be a case where the respondent intended to rely upon the copy of the agreement of sale for the purpose of enforcing it, the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners can certainly be sustained. Section 35 of the Stamp Act prohibits admission of any "instrument" in evidence, unless, it is duly stamped. Hardly, there exists any doubt that an agreement of sale is an instrument within the meaning of sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the stamp Act, in the normal parlance. However, it needs to be seen that for a document, to be treated as an instrument within the meaning of sub-section (14) of Section 2, a right or liability has to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished, or, recorded by it. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document