SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
Raman Wadhwa – Appellant
Versus
Satnam Singh and Others – Respondents
CR No. 5769 of 2025
Decided On : 26-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shivya Sehgal

Only original documents can be validated under the Indian Stamp Act; photocopies cannot be validated or impounded, irrespective of secondary evidence provisions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 33 and 35 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Photocopy of agreement to sell not validated due to insufficient stamp duty; only original documents can be validated as per the Act. The court stated, 'the only original document can be validated, not a photocopy.' (Paras 2, 7)

(B) Secondary Evidence - Permission to prove documents by secondary evidence has been allowed but the originals must be produced for validation; this is to ensure adherence to statutory requirements. 'Such a document cannot be impounded under the Indian Stamp Act.' (Paras 4, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the order which allowed secondary evidence of an agreement to sell executed by a deceased individual, arguing that a photocopy cannot be stamped. The original document was not produced in court, complicating the case. (Para 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower court improperly allowed validation of a photocopy and ruled that the order was in material illegality. (Para 7)

Issues: The case revolved around whether a photocopy could be validated under the Stamp Act and the jurisdiction of the lower court to allow secondary evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that validation is only applicable to original documents; secondary evidence like photocopies cannot substitute originals in stamp duty requirements. 'The impugned order suffers from material illegality.' (Para 7)

Result: The revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. (Para 7)

Table of Content
1. filing for revision under article 227. (Para 1)
2. only original documents can be validated. (Para 2)
3. court's examination and previous rulings. (Para 3 , 4)
4. original instruments required for validation. (Para 5)
5. photocopies cannot be impounded. (Para 6)
6. impugned order set aside due to illegality. (Para 7)
7. observations not affecting merits. (Para 8)
8. disposal of pending applications. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran vide which photocopy of the agreement to sell was ordered to be not impounded, but deficient stamp duty and penalty was ordered to be paid.

2. The order has been assailed on the grounds that as per provisions of Sections 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 only an original document can be validated and photocopy of the document cannot be validated.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order minutely.

4. After perusal of impugned order relevant extract of para No.6 of the same are reproduced as under:-

“6. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession of suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dt. 05.03.2018 allegedly executed by deceased Roshan Singh predecessor in interest of the defendants who are contesting the present suit being legal heirs of deceased Roshan Singh. The contesting defendants have denied execution of agreement to sell dt. 05.03 2018 by deceased Roshan Singh and when the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs, the present application has been moved by them seeking permission to make good the deficient stamp duty, whereas on the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the contesting defendant has vehemently argued that alleged agreement dt. 05.03.2018 has not been produced on file by the plaintiffs and one page of the same is missing and the plaintiffs have sought permission from this Court to prove the same by way of secondary evidence by moving application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was allowed by be then Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide order dt. 24.08.2023 and as the original document has not been produced on file, the present application cannot be allowed as the copy of stamp paper has been produced in the Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.4910 of 2023, decided on 29.11.2023 has specifically held that if a document at is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped then the position of law well settled that a copy of such document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced. No doubt, in the present case the original stamp paper has not been produced before the Court but the facts of the abovesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are not applicable to the present case as in the present case the question before this Court is not as to whether the insufficiently stamped agreement can be allowed to be proved by way of secondary evidence as the said issue has already been decided by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide order dt. 24.08.2023, rather the present application has been moved by the plaintiffs seeking permission to make good the deficient stamp duty on the stamp papers on which the alleged agreement dt. 05.03.2018 has been written. No doubt, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in abovesaid judgment has held that Section 35 of the Stamp Act forbids the letting of secondary evidence in proof of its contents. The Section excludes both the original instrument and secondary evidence of its contents if it needs to be stamped or sufficiently stamped. This bar as to the admissibility of the documents is absolute. Where a document cannot be received in evidence on the ground that it is not duly stamped, the secondary evidence there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top