Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.34 of 2003 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur, against respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioner herein, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 05-05-2003 in respect of the land in R.S.Nos.971 /1 and 971/2 of Vengalanagar, Bapatla. The petitioner herein, figured as defendant No.4 in the suit. The trial of the suit is in progress. On behalf of the petitioner, a document dated 05-05-2003 was sought to be relied upon. Initially, it was received evidence, as Ex.B-8, subject to the objection raised by the respondents 1 and 2 (for short ‘the respondents’, since is endorsed that the other respondents are not necessary). Respondents filed a revision before this Court against the said endorsement. The revision was allowed and the question, relating to the admissibility of the document, was directed to be decided, before the document was received in evidence. It was in this context, that the petitioner on the one hand, and the respondents, on the other hand, have put forward their contentions, on the admissibility of the document. Through a reasoned order, dated 23-01-2006, the trial Court held that the document is inadmissible. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.

2. Sri A. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document in question is a certified copy obtained from another court, and the objection, as to absence or inadequacy of stamp duty; cannot be raised. He contends that the petitioner is not a party to the transaction, under the document in question, nor does he propose to enforce any rights and obligations under it, and in that view of the matter, it ought to have been received in evidence.

3. Sri M.Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the prohibition contained under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short ‘the Act’) is absolute, and unstamped document cannot be received in evidence, for any purpose, whatever. Placing reliance upon several judgments, touching on the subject, he contends that even a secondary evidence, of an instrument, which was required to be stamped, is inadmissible, unless it is properly stamped. He submits that the purpose, for which the document is sought to be relied upon, becomes irrelevant, in the context of Section 35, unlike the facility created for admission of unregistered documents, for collateral purposes.

4. The short question, that arises for consideration in this revision, is, as to whether the certified copy of a lease deed, filed in a different set of proceedings, to which the petitioner is not a party, is inadmissible in evidence, on the ground that it is not properly stamped and registered.

5. The admitted facts are that the document in question is an agreement of lease, and the petitioner is not a party to it. It is also not disputed that the document was neither stamped nor registered. The document is said to have been filed in LGC No.93 of 2003, by the alleged lessees it, and the petitioner obtained a certified copy thereof.

6. Before undertaking discussion of the matter, with reference to the relevant provisions and decided cases, it is necessary to refer to the context, in which the document was sought to be relied upon.

7. Respondents filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, and for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner alleged that, on the one hand, a suit is filed for specific performance of contract and recovery of possession, and on the other hand, the respondents have inducted the third party into possession, under the document in question, by incorporating a recital to the effect that the possession of the property was delivered to them. He wanted to impress upon the trial court, about the inconsistency of the stands, on the part of the respondents.

8. The bar contained in Section 35 of the Act, as to admissibility of documents, which are