Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
N.S. Rama Devi – Petitioner
Versus
V. Chitti Babu and Others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 26 of 2024
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Venkata Narayana Sarma Paturi.
For the Respondent: P.S.P. Suresh Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
Documents not marked in evidence cannot be impounded for stamp duty and must be returned to the party.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Permanent Injunction - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 33, 35, 36 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the return of unmarked documents and the necessity of stamp duty, concluding that documents not marked in evidence cannot be impounded and should be returned.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a permanent injunction over property, which was dismissed. An application for the return of unmarked documents was also dismissed due to insufficient stamping, leading to a civil revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's refusal to return unmarked documents was incorrect, as the duty to impound arises only when documents are tendered in evidence.
Issues: Whether unmarked documents can be returned without payment of stamp duty and penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that documents not marked in evidence cannot be impounded and should be returned, as the duty to impound arises only at the stage of marking documents.
Result: The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, directing the return of the documents to the petitioner.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner herein had filed O.S. No. 181 of 2024 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for grant of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property, again the respondents herein. This suit came to be dismissed on 28.06.2022.
2. After the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 704 of 2023 for return of certain documents which had not been marked in the course of trial. However, this application was dismissed for the trial, by an order dated 11.08.2023. The trial had held that documents in serial number 4, 6 and 7 of the list furnished with the application, are unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents. The trial Court on the basis of the circular issued by this Court on 10.07.2006 in ROC No. 1628/SO/2005 had directed that whenever a document is liable to be impounded for stamp duty and penalty are filed before the Court, such documents cannot be returned to the party unless deficient stamp and penalty are paid.
3. On this basis, the trial Court refused to return the documents. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. As the respondents had already endorsed “no objection” for the return of the documents, issue of notice to the respondents would only lead to further delay and expense for the respondents. To obviate such problems, this Court thought at fit to appoint Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, a learned Advocate of this Court, as Amicus of the Court, to assist the Court in this matter.
5. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar has placed certain judgments before this Court. These judgments can be put into two categories. Those for the preposition that such document can be returned and those for the preposition that such documents cannot be returned without payment of stamp duty etc.
6. The judgments holding that documents can be returned are: K. Santhakumar vs. K. Suseela Devi, AIR 1961 A.P. 424 : 1961 (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 425, C. Sreedhara Raja vs. S. Vittoba Rao, AIR 2005 A.P. 322 Lokara Om Kumar vs. Baikan Satyanarayana and Others, 2006 (5) ALD 91, K. Sivakanth Reddy and Others vs. Ramanjaneyulu and Others, AIR 2008 A.P. 4.
7. The judgments which hold that it may not be appropriate to return the same are Miss Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs. Miss. P. Gunavath, AIR 2013 Karnataka 52. A judgment on a connected issue as to the stamp duty payable for agreement of sale which is followed by delivery of possession or which records delivery of possession is reported in B. Ratnamala vs. G. Rudramma, AIR 2000 A.P. 167.
Consideration of the Court:
8. In K. Santhakumar vs. K. Suseela Devi’s case a learned Single Judge of the Court was considering the exigibility of stamp duty on an agreement of sale and whether documents produced in that case were deeds of sale or agreements to sell. The subsidiary issue that arose in that case was whether a Court should collect stamp duty and penalty at a stage even before the time of admission of evidence. The learned Single Judge, after considering judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras had held that collection of stamp duty should not be done before the stage of admissibility of the document in evidence. The learned Single Judge, while laying down this principle, also took into account a situation where a party pays penalty for stamping of the document and such document is not admitted in evidence, the party would not have a chance of refund also and would cause undue hardship.
9. In C. Sreedhara Raja vs. S. Vittoba Rao’s case, a learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the requirement to pay stamp duty on certain documents, had laid down the following principles:
25. From a reading of the above provision, the following would emerge:
(1) The parties can file the documents at the initial stage.
(2) Such documents shall be admitted into evidence as provided under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3) An unstamped or insufficiently stamped document is not admissible in evidence per se as postula
