Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
Kukku Venkataratnam —Petitioner
versus
K. Sujilabai and Ors. —Respondents
CRP No. 4709 of 2013
Decided on 28.1.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, Advocate.
For The Respondents:Mr. J.M. Naidu, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The readiness on the part of concerned party to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty if, any, before the competent authority can be treated as sufficient ground to receive document in evidence, if the concerned authority expresses inability or refuses to cure the defect.
Headnote:(i) Registration Act—Section 17—Proviso to Section 49—Indian Stamp Act—Article 47A—Suit for specific performance—Application to file agreements of sale—Dismissed as agreements not properly stamped—Petitioner filed an application to send documents, to Collector for collection of stamp duty—Authority to whom documents were marked, refused to impound them—Trial Court refused to received the documents—Revision there against—Whenever a document which is required to be stamped under relevant provisions of law, is either not stamped at all or is insufficiently stamped, the Indian Stamp Act prohibits the same from being received in evidence, before any Court or authority—However, such defect can be cured by collecting deficit stamp duty and in certain cases, by levying penalty—Instantly an effort to get defect cured was made—If the authority conferred with the power to cure defect refuses to do so, party cannot be pushed to a state of helplessness—The readiness on the part of concerned party to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty, if any before competent authority can be treated as sufficient ground to receive document in evidence, if concerned authority expresses in ability or refuses to cure the defect—This may sound a bit abnormal and departure from normal practice—The same is however resorted to, lest the entire proceedings get lacked up in an inextricable or vicious circle—Documents in question held liable to be received in evidence, subject to proof and relevance—Revision petition allowed. (Paras 6 and 10)
(ii) Registration Act—Proviso to Section 49—Suit for specific performance of agreements of sale—Trial Court refusing to receive documents—Revision there against—The proviso to Section 49 carves out two exceptions to principle that if a document which is otherwise required to be registered cannot be received in evidence, unless it is registered—Firstly when it is relied upon in a suit for specific performance and second is when it is sought to be used for collateral purpose—Since the suit on hand was one for specific performance, bar contained under Section 49 of the Act could not be applied—Hence view taken by trial Court as to admissibility of document could not be sustained. (Para 8)
Result: Revision petition allowed.
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.— The petitioner filed OS No.20 of 2003 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for the relief of specific performance of two agreements of sale, dated 29.7.1991 and 1.12.1992. During the. trial of the suit, the petitioner sought to file the agreements referred to above. An objection was raised stating that the agreements are not properly stamped and not registered. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application to send the documents to the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act for collection of stamp duty and penalty. It is stated that the authority, to whom the documents were marked, refused to impound them by observing that the property covered by the agreements belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and obviously, they sought to enforce Section 22A of the Registration Act as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2007 (for short ‘the Act’). With this background, the petitioner sought to make the documents part of the record once again.
2. On behalf of the respondents, an objection was raised. Therefore, the trial Court heard the matter in detail and passed an order, dated 29.8.2012 refusing to receive the documents. It was observed that the person, who executed the agreements of sale himself did not have title and that though there is a mention as to delivery of possession, the agreements were not registered as required under Section 17 of the Act. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Burra Anitha v. Elagari Mallava and Ors., 2010(6) ALT 128 the trial Court took the view that a document, which is insufficiently stamped cannot be received even for collateral purpose. The said order is challenged in this revision.
3. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised as to the registration of the documents is untenable, in view of the facility created under proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act. He further submits that the objection as to the insufficiency of stamp duty was addressed on earlier occasion and once the document has been sent to an authority under the Indian Stamp Act and he returned the same, it must be assumed that there is proper compliance. He contends that the trial Court was not justified in expressing its view on the question of title of the executants of the agreements.
4, Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that unless the documents are properly stamped, they cannot be received in evidence and even by this time, the defect as to deficiency of stamp duty was not rectified. He further submits that the requirement as to registration is also equally important.
5. The basis for the petitioner to claim the relief of specific performance is the set of two agreements referred to above. Admittedly, the agreements are not registered. The question as to whether they were required to be registered and if so, whether they can be received in evidence would be considered a bit later. The objection about the admissibility, on the ground that the documents are not sufficiently stamped was raised at an earlier stage. Obviously, to get that defect cured, the petitioner filed an application seeking reference of the same to the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act. However, no determination as such has taken place before that authority, on the ground that the property covered by the agreements attracts Section 22A of the Act.
6. Whenever a document, which is required to be stamped under the relevant provisions of law, is either not stamped at all or is insufficiently stamped, the Indian Stamp Act prohibits the same from being received in evidence, before any Court or authority. However, such defect can be cured, by collecting deficit stamp duty and in certain cases, by levying penalty. In the instant case, an effort to get the defect cured was made. If the authority conferred with the power to cure the defect refuses to do so, the party cannot be pushed to a state of helplessness. The re
