Unstamped document not admissible for any purpose.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed against the fair and decretal order dated 8.12.2004 made in I.A.No.641 of 2004 in O.S.No.973 of 2004 by the I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.)

The defendant, who failed before the I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, in resisting I.A.No.641 of 2004 in O.S.No.973 of 2004, which was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, to mark certain documents, as exhibits, is the revision petitioner.

2. O.S.No.973 of 2004 was filed by the respondent against the revision petitioner for specific performance, based upon a sale agreement. According to the respondent/plaintiff, as seen from the averments in the plaint, discharge of two this dated 20.10.2001 and 31.10.2001, also form part of sale consideration, in addition, those documents, evidence his possession also.

3. The suit for specific performance, filed by the respondent/plaintiff, is opposed by the defendant/revision petitioner, disputing the alleged sale agreement as well as questioning the admissibility of the said documents, in evidence.

4. Because of the dispute, 'whether the documents dated 20.10.2001 and 31.10.2001 and the endorsements therein are admissible, in evidence', a petition came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the reception and marking of the same, in I.A.No.641 of 2004, which was opposed by the defendant/revision petitioner.

5. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, considering the rival contentions of the parties and by going through the judicial precedents, quoted before her, came to the conclusion that the documents could be admitted, for collateral purpose, without mentioning what is the collateral purpose, as per the order dated 8.12.2004, which is under challenge in this revision.

6. Heard both.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that admittedly, the documents, sought to be exhibited, are un-registered and un-stamped this (mortgage) and in this view, in the absence of payment of stamp duty and penalty as well as registration, they are inadmissible in evidence, since admitting those documents would offend the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act as well as certain provisions of the Registration Act.

8. Responding to the above submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the law declared by the Apex Court as well as this Court, the documents, in question, could be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose, such as, for proving the possession, which was properly considered by the Court below, not warranting any interference by this Court.

9. By going through the documents, in question, as well as the decisions available and the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, I am afraid to subscribe my view to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent as well as hesitate to affix my seal of approval, for the order passed by the Court below. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff fairly concedes that the documents, sought to be admitted in evidence, require stamp duty as well as registration. It is also an admitted fact that the two documents, sought to be admitted in evidence, are written in ordinary paper, wherein the party is said to have signed in a revenue stamp. The recitals therein certainly make out a case of mortgage, not only warranting stamp duty but also requiring registration, not very much in dispute.

10. Having the above admitted facts, if we read Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the irresistible conclusion that could be drawn by the Court must be, that 'unless these documents are properly stamped, they are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose, whether it is collateral or otherwise.' Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates:

"No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted u