( 1 ) IN this revision the order passed by the Principal District Munsif in O. S. No. 350/78 refusing to admit the document sought to be received by the plaintiff on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered, is challenged. The petitioner filed the suit O. S. No. 350/78 for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property measuring 0-49 cents. The plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1 and he tendered exchange deed dated 14-6-1958 in support of his case as to possession. The plaintiff wanted to prove that possession was delivered to respondent in pursuance of the document in question. According to the plaintiff, the first plaintiff purchased A schedule property measuring 0-49 cents under a registered sale deed dated 6-5-1958 from the defendant and obtained possession in pursuance of the sale deed. At that time the defendants father was in possession of B schedule properly measuring 0. 34 cents. The plaintiff and the defendant wanted to have exchange of these two properties. The plaintiff agreed to exchange A schedule property measuring 0-49 cents for 0-34 cents of B schedule property belonging to the defendant and the defendant agreed for the same. Hence the exchange deed was executed and in pursuance of the exchange deed the plaintiff took possession of 0-34 cents from the defendant delivering his 0-49 cents to him. The defendant failed to substantiate his title in respect of the 0-34 cents given to the plaintiff in exchange of the 0-49 cents and hence the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of 0. 49 cents given to the defendant.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff now wants to prove that the defendant has been in possession of 0. 49 cents given to him under the exchange deed and hence he tendered the document for proving the fact that he delivered possession of the A schedule property to the defendant. Since the document was not stamped, it was sent to the R. D. O. for duty and penalty. The R. D. O. impounded the same and imposed duty and penalty and appended a certificate to that effect. But, when the document was tendered in evidence, after the certificate was appended by the R. D. O. , the Court refused to admit the same on the ground that surcharge to the extent of 5% of the value of the property was not paid as per the provisions of Sections 69 and 73 of the Gram Panchayat Act, which came into force in 1964.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that every transaction in respect of immovable property under the jurisdiction of the village panchayat requires payment of 5% of the value of the property as surcharge. Since the surcharge as required by the Gram Panchayat Act was not collected by the R. D. O. along with the duty and penalty while impounding the document, the learned District Munsif refused to admit the document.

( 4 ) SRI Ramkrishna Raju the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower Court committed jurisdictional error in refusing to receive the document, ignoring the legal position that the document can be received in evidence if it is tendered for collateral purpose and the non-payment of surcharge as required by the Gram Panchayat Act is not governed by the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that an instrument chargeable with duty should be stamped so as to make it admissible in evidence. Proviso A to Section 35 of the Stamp Act enables a document to be received in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty if the document is chargeable, but not stamped or on payment of deficit duty and penalty, if it is insufficiently stamped. The bar against the admissibility of an instrument which is chargeable with stamp duty and is not stamped is of course absolute whatever be the nature of the purpose, be it for main or collateral purpose, unless the requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are complied with. It follows that if the requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are satisfied, then the document which is chargeable wit