Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.
Debabrata Kumar Mitra – Appellant
Versus
Rajat Ghosh & Ors. – Respondents
C.O. No. 3061 of 2001
Decided on : 17-05-2024
Stamp - Document Admissibility - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 36 - The court interpreted Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, emphasizing that once a document is admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned later due to insufficient stamping, influencing the decision to set aside the trial court's order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order from the trial court that sought to impound a document already admitted as evidence in a specific performance suit, arguing that the trial court acted illegally by recalling the admission based on stamp duty issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's order to impound the document was illegal as it violated Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, which states that once a document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be questioned later for lack of proper stamping.
Issues: Whether a document admitted in evidence can be recalled for impounding due to insufficient stamp duty after it has been marked as an exhibit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, once a document is admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be challenged later, establishing a clear precedent for the treatment of such documents in legal proceedings.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to expedite the hearing of the suit.
JUDGMENT :
Prasenjit Biswas, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order no. 15 dated 28.03.2021 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore in connection with title suit no. 91 of 1999 this application is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
2. The moot question involved in this case that once any document is admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit subsequently, such order whether could be recalled by the Court for impounding the instrument in absence of the payment of proper stamp duty.
3. Impugned order no. 15 dated 28.03.2001 passed by the Trial Court is as follows:-
4. Despite service affected upon the opposite parties none has appeared to contest this case.
5. Petitioner being the plaintiff filed a suit for decree for specific performance of agreement dated 18th day of November, 1995 directing the defendants and each of them to execute a registered conveyance in his favour for sale of flat in question. The said suit was filed by this plaintiff/petitioner against the defendants before the Trial Court which was registered as Title Suit No. 91 of 1999. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the said suit came up for hearing before the learned Trial Court on diverse occasions and on 16.03.2001 the present petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and at the time of examination in chief the document was produced before the learned Trial Court and the said document was marked as exhibit in that suit. Thereafter, the said matter came up for hearing before the Trial Court on 28th March, 2001 and the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order with observation that the agreement dated 18.11.1995 and memo of agreement dated 13.08.1997 be impounded.
6. Learned Counsel at the time of hearing reiterated the provision of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and as per his submissions once a document is admitted in evidence and such admission shall not except as provided in Section 61 of the said Act be called in question at any stage of the suit on the ground that it has not been properly stamped. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the learned Trial Court in exercise of jurisdiction acted illegally and with material irregularities in impounding the document. So, as per submission of the learned Counsel that the learned Trial Court ought to have acted on the basis of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990 came into force on 31st January, 1994 and as such the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1990 has no manner of application in this regard.
7. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Javer Chand And Others Vs. Pukhraj Surana reported in AIR 1961 SC 1655 and in case of Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal reported in (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 331.
8. Section 36 of the Stamp Act provides:
Once an instrument is admitted in evidence without objection, it cannot subsequently be held to be inadmissible on the ground of being insufficiently stamped, as per Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Ac....
A document admitted in evidence cannot be questioned for insufficiency of stamp duty, but courts have a mandatory duty to impound such documents regardless of any objections raised.
Under the Indian Stamp Act, once a document is found to be insufficiently stamped, the court is duty-bound to impound the document and send it to the Collector for proper assessment and payment of th....
The court established that trial courts must diligently assess the admissibility of documents, particularly regarding stamping and registration, and have the authority to impound insufficiently stamp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents for collateral purpose, the application of the provisions of 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
