The court upheld that technical defects in documents should not allow unfair advantages, particularly when the document’s existence is contested.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B, Das, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 15^th April, 2025 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Birmaharajpur passed in CS No.141 of 2014, wherein the prayer of the defendant to impound the sale deed (Ext.B) has been refused.

3. Present opposite party being the plaintiff filed the suit praying for declaration of his possession over the suit land as genuine, for permanent injunction and other reliefs. Present petitioner being the defendant after his appearance pursued his case that there is a sale deed in his favour executed on 28^th March, 1979 (Ext.B). Said sale deed under Ext.B is an unregistered document and at this stage of the suit the defendant seeks impounding of the same through the trial court. In support of his case Ms. Naidu refers to a decision in the case of Saran Dass and Others v. Smt. Situ and Others, AIR 1986 Himanchal Pradesh 1.

4. It is true that Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 authorizes the court to issue direction for impounding where the instrument is rendered as insufficiently stamped to be void or invalid on that ground and such defect can be curated by payment of proper stamp in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2320 while dealing with earlier decisions, have held as follows:-

“17. The object of the Act is not to exclude evidence or to enable parties to avoid obligations on technical grounds. Rather, the object is to obtain revenue even from such instruments which are at the first instance unstamped or insufficiently stamped. The said objective has the twin elements of recovering the due stamp duty and penalty, and also the public policy of binding parties to the agreed obligations. It is apposite to refer to the declaration of law by a seven-judge bench’s judgment of this Court on the object of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

17.1. In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court noted that Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (analogous to Section 34 of the Act) unambiguously requires an instrument chargeable with stamp duty to only be “admitted in evidence” if it is properly stamped. This Court further noted that improperly stamping the instrument does not render that instrument void or invalid. On the contrary, it is a defect which is curable upon payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty. The relevant paragraph reads thus:

“54. Section 35 of the Stamp Act is unambiguous. It stipulates, “No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence…” The term “admitted in evidence” refers to the admissibility of the instrument. Sub-section (2) of Section 42, too, states that an instrument in respect of which stamp-duty is paid and which is endorsed as such will be “admissible in evidence.” The effect of not paying duty or paying an inadequate amount renders an instrument inadmissible and not void. Non-stamping or improper stamping does not result in the instrument becoming invalid. The Stamp Act does not render such an instrument void. The non-payment of stamp duty is accurately characterised as a curable defect. The Stamp Act itself provides for the manner in which the defect may be cured and sets out a detailed procedure for it. It bears mentioning that there is no procedure by which a void agreement can be “cured.”

17.2. In Hindustan Steel Limited v. Dilip Construction Company, (1969) 1 SCC 597, this Court held that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a fiscal measure intended to raise reven