Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 488
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
R. Kalyani & Others
Versus
T. Rose Mukundakumar
C.R.P.(NPD).No. 1573 of 2010 & M.P.No. 1 of 2010
Decided on: 27-02-2014
For the Petitioners:V. Raghavachari for M/s. N.R. Rajagopalan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S. Sounthar for M/s. A. Arun Babu, Advocates.
The duty of the authority to impound insufficiently stamped documents and the inadmissibility of such documents for any purpose, including for collateral purpose.
Headnote:
Insufficiently Stamped Document - Civil Revision Petition - Indian Stamp Act, Sections 33, 35, 36 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and various judgments related to the admissibility of insufficiently stamped documents. The court emphasized the duty of the authority to impound insufficiently stamped documents and the inadmissibility of such documents for any purpose, including for collateral purpose. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the lower court to dispose of the petition in the light of relevant judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, claiming joint ownership of a property and alleging interference by the defendant. The defendant contested the suit, stating that the property was purchased by his mother and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Judge erred in permitting the defendant to mark an insufficiently stamped sale deed without judicially determining the objections raised by the plaintiffs. The court emphasized the duty to impound insufficiently stamped documents and the inadmissibility of such documents for any purpose.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of an insufficiently stamped sale deed and the judicial determination of objections raised by the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty to impound insufficiently stamped documents and the inadmissibility of such documents for any purpose, including for collateral purpose. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the lower court to dispose of the petition in the light of relevant judgments.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was disposed of accordingly, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. Inveighing the order, dated 21.11.2009, passed by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.14434 of 2009 in O.S.No.4156 of 2007, this civil revision petition has been filed.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, in O.S.No.4156 of 2007, on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. They had filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his men and agent from, in any way, interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, contending that they are the joint owners of the property.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the suit property originally belonged to Mr.Devadass @ Ramadoss, who is the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 herein. He settled the property in favour of the plaintiffs, by a settlement deed, dated 13.4.2007 and delivered possession to them. The respondent is attempting to encroach upon their property and interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence the suit.
4. The respondent contested the suit stating that the suit property was purchased by his mother Mrs.Arputham, by way of a sale deed, dated 27.7.1998, and she has been in possession and enjoyment the suit property. So, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. During the course of evidence, on behalf of the defendant, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and through him, the defendant had marked the sale deed as Ex.B1. Since the sale deed was insufficiently stamped, the petitioners objected to the marking of the same. However, the learned Judge, over ruled the objection and permitted the defendant to mark the document as Ex.B1. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application, in I.A.No.14434 of 2009, to impound the sale deed, marked as Ex.B1, on the ground that the document was written on a stamp paper of Rs.10/- and it was also not registered before any authority. The respondent resisted the application and the learned trial Judge dismissed the application. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.
6. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had rightly objected to the marking of the insufficiently stamped sale deed when it was tendered, but the learned trial Judge, without judicially determining the objection raised, then and there, simply permitted the respondent to mark the said document. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, when an insufficiently stamped document is produced, the Court, who is an authority to receive it, ought to have impounded the document and even for collateral purpose, the document cannot be permitted to be marked. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court reported in (i)(2001) 1 M.L.J. 1, (ii)(2009) 3 M.L.J. 409 (SC), (iii) (1978) 3 SCC 236, (iv) (2013) 2 L.W.350 (v) (2008) 5 CTC 577, (vi) (2000) 3 LW 785, (vii) (2003) 8 SCC 752, (viii) (2009) 2 SCC 532 (ix) (2006) 11 SCC 331.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application taking into consideration of the fact that the document was already marked and the suit was in a part heard stage; that the trial Court has not outrightly rejected the request of the petitioner, but held that at the time of final disposal of the suit, direction could be made for impounding the document. Hence, the impugned order need not be interfered with, by this Court, in the revision.
9. Before considering the issue involved in the revision petition, I would like to refer to the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court as well as High Courts, emerged thereunder.
10. Sections 33, 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act
