None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based solely on the language provided. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or similar phrases that suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of these precedents.
[Followed/Consistent Treatment]
None of the cases explicitly mention being followed or reaffirmed in subsequent decisions within the provided list. The descriptions are procedural or interpretative statements without references to subsequent validation.
[Distinguished or Clarified]
Case Avinash Kumar Chauhan VS Vijay Krishna Mishra - 2009 1 Supreme 58: This case clarifies the absolute nature of the bar against admissibility of unstamped instruments under the Indian Stamp Act, emphasizing that the prohibition is "absolute" unless specific conditions are met. This could serve as a foundational or clarificatory ruling, but not necessarily one that has been distinguished or overruled.
Case AMEER MINHAJ VS DIERDRE ELIZABETH (WRIGHT) ISSAR - 2018 6 Supreme 286: This case discusses the effect of unregistered agreements under section 53A and their admissibility as evidence. It appears to state a settled legal position rather than being overruled or criticized.
Case Yellapu Uma Maheswari VS Buddha Jagadheeswararao - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 971: This case deals with the terms of a document in partition suits and the importance of proper stamping for reliance on the document. It states the legal principles clearly but does not indicate subsequent treatment that would suggest it has been overruled or criticized.
All three cases are presented with straightforward legal principles and do not contain language indicating they have been overruled, reversed, or criticized. However, without additional context or references to later case law, there remains some uncertainty about their current standing or whether they have been implicitly overruled or modified by subsequent jurisprudence. Therefore, these cases are categorized as uncertain in treatment, pending further legal context.
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
S.G.CHAPALGAONKAR
Salim Baig S/o Akhtar Baig – Appellant
Versus
Sayyad Nawid S/o Sayyad Nazir – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of parties.
2. The petitioner/defendant takes exception to order dated 10.05.2023, passed by learned District Judge, Beed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.91 of 2022, thereby upholding order dated 21.09.2022 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed below Exhibit-5, in Special Civil Suit No.93 of 2022, thereby granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent/plaintiff.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under.
4. Petitioner/original defendant is owner of suit property. He agreed to sell suit land to respondent/plaintiff for consideration of Rs.92,50,000
Unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents are inadmissible for any legal purpose, including temporary injunctions, preventing plaintiffs from establishing claims based on such documents.
(1) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance must be dismissed when it is based on an instrument that is legally inadmissible as evidence – Plaintiff cannot claim relief on the basis of a do....
Documents marked as exhibits can be subsequently objected to for admissibility if not duly stamped, requiring judicial determination on the issue of admissibility.
Agreement to sell – Impounding an agreement to sell of an immovable property after 23 years of its alleged execution, where execution itself is disputed and which was never presented for registration....
A sale agreement must comply with the Indian Stamp Act requirements to be admissible in evidence; failure to do so invalidates the agreement's enforceability.
Unregistered agreements for the sale of property without possession delivery are not conveyances and do not require stamping, valid for evidence in specific performance cases.
A photocopy of an unstamped document may be admissible as secondary evidence under specific circumstances despite objections under the Stamp Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article