( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the order dated 01-8-2001 passed by the learned Junior civil Judge, Medak, in O. S. No. 8 of 1998.

( 2 ) WHEN a Xerox copy of the agreement of sale dated 24-4-1997 was sought to be introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, while leading secondary evidence through p. W. 4, on an objection taken by the adversary under the impugned order the learned Judge directed the document to be impounded under Section 35 of the Indian stamp Act ( the Act for brevity) on the premise that the document should be stamped as if it were a sale inasmuch as the possession was delivered under the document in view of Article 47-A of schedule I-A of the said Act. Earlier, it appears, in LA. No. 40 of 2001 the plaintiff- revision petitioner was permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing Xerox copy of the original agreement of sale dated 24-4-1997. It is discernible from the order that the original agreement itself was executed on a plain paper and since it was lost, the plaintiff sought to adduce secondary evidence as aforesaid. When the plaintiff was permitted to adduce secondary evidence under an order dated 08-04-2001 in i. A. No. 40 of 2001 by the learned Junior Civil judge, Medak, that order was assailed before this Court in Civil Revision Petition no. 2603 of 2001 dated 21-06-2001. A learned single Judge of this Court held that the finding recorded by the trial Judge was perfectly in accordance with the law and based upon the material available on record and, therefore, there was nothing to interfere with the said order. However, the question as regards the payment of stamp duty and penalty and inadmissibility of the document in question was left open. As aforesaid, pursuant to the said order, when the Xerox copy of the document was sought to be introduced, an objection as regards the stamp duty and penalty was raised on the premise that the original itself was executed on a plain paper and, therefore, it required to be stamped as it would take the place of the primary evidence.

( 3 ) IT was sought to be contended on the side of the plaintiff-revision petitioner that the document did not require to be stamped since it was only secondary evidence. The nomenclature of the document in question, as could be seen from the order, is conditional agreement . Having regard to the recitals contained in the document in question, the learned Judge was of the view that inasmuch as the possession was delivered under the document, it should be construed in accordance with Article 47-A of schedule I-A of the Act and accordingly it had to be impounded. The objection on the side of the defendants in the suit was, therefore, sustained under the impugned order.

( 4 ) THE undisputed fact seems to be that the original agreement of sale dated 24-4-1997 was executed on a plain paper. Therefore, it was unstamped and the said document was lost. The Xerox copy of the said document has been permitted to be introduced by leading secondary evidence by the trial Court which has been subsequently upheld by this Court, as aforesaid.

( 5 ) IN view of the above facts, two questions would fall for consideration, namely, (1) whether the copy of the document, which was unstamped, is required to be stamped? and (2) what is the evidentiary value of such a document when original itself was an unstamped document?

( 6 ) SECTION 35 of the Act is apposite here to be considered since it is the relevant provision, which prohibits the reception of a document, which is not duly stamped and the same insofar as is relevant for the present purposes may be extracted hereunder thus:"35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence etc: No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties 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: provided that (a)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document