Insufficiently stamped documents are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose unless stamp duty is paid.

ORDER

1. Although, the matter comes up on an application no.1/2021 filed by the respondents seeing vacation of ex parte interim order; but, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Keshorai Pattan, District Bundi whereby, an application filed by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 for not taking the subject document in evidence, has been allowed.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the respondents/defendants. During the course of trial, the plaintiff wanted to exhibit an agreement to sell which was objected by the respondent no.1. Sustaining the objection, the learned trial Court has observed that insufficiently stamped and unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence even for collateral purpose.

4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unstamped/insufficiently stamped document as also unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose and since, he wanted to exhibit the subject sale agreement to demonstrate demarcation of the subject property, it was admissible in evidence. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 25.03.2019 be quashed and set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to permit him to exhibit the subject document. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court of India:- (I) S. Kaladevi Vs. R. Somasundaram & Ors.: AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1654 & (II) Bondar Singh & Ors. Vs. Nihal Singh & Ors.: AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1905.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would submit that insufficiently stamped document is not admissible in evidence for any purpose. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. It is trite law that insufficiently stamped document is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose. Since, the subject document is not only unregistered; but, insufficiently stamped also, it was not admissible in evidence. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in passing the order dated 25.03.2019.

8. Their Lordships have, in case of Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama: (2018) 15 SCC 130, while affirming findings of the learned trial Court holding the document in question to be inadmissible in evidence being inadequately stamped and unregistered, held that while, an unregistered document which is compulsorily registrable, can be looked into in evidence for collateral purpose, an unstamped/insufficiently stamped document cannot be accepted in evidence even for collateral purpose unless the same is subjected to payment of stamp duty and penalty.

9. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Yellapu Uma Maheshwari & Anr. Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Ors.: (2015) 16 SCC 787.

10. The judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Bondar Singh & Ors. (supra) is of no help to him inasmuch in that case, the Hon'ble Court dealt with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1908') only and was not concerned with the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1899'). A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Prembai Vs. Khurshid Bano & Ors.: 2014 (3) RLW 1874 (Raj.), after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 35 of the Act of 1899, proceeded to hold as under:-

'7. A bare perusal of Section 35 of the Act of 1899 would reveal that the Parliament has used words 'for any purpose whatsoever'. Therefore, the purpose for which the document is sought to be admitted in evidence would not be a relevant factor. The execution of a deed of conveyance in respect of the premises for which suit has been i