Once a document is admitted into evidence, Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act prohibits any subsequent challenge to its admissibility based on insufficient stamp duty, and the principle of finality prevents re-litigating issues already decided in earlier interlocutory applications.

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam S.Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is preferred by the petitioner/respondent/plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the Trial Court’), in I.A.No.606 of 2023 in O.S.No.510 of 2014, dated 02.09.2024, wherein, a petition filed by respondent No.1 herein/petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, to de-exhibit/demark the insufficiently stamped agreement of sale dated 22.11.2006/Ex.A1 and receipt-cum-letter of delivery of possession dated 19.10.2011/Ex.A3 and expunging them from record, has been allowed.

Background of facts:

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein filed suit in O.S.No.1568 of 2013 against the petitioner herein seeking perpetual injunction with respect to property consisting of plot No.14, forming part of Sy.Nos.357 and 358 situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The extent of plot is 800 Sq.Yds. While so, the petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.510 of 2014 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.11.2006 with respect to property consisting of plot No.1, admeasuring about 241 Sq.Yds., and plot Nos.2, 3 and 4 total admeasuring about 339 Sq.Yds., both forming part of old plot No.14 in Sy.Nos.357 and 358 situated at Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar GHMC, Ranga Reddy District, and also sought perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the property. Both the suits are being tried together, with common evidence being led. While leading common evidence, the petitioner had exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-23, which includes the agreement of sale dated 22.11.2006 as Ex.A1 and the receipt-cum-letter of delivery of possession dated 19.10.2011 as Ex.A3. These documents were not properly stamped as per Article 6 (b) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (‘Stamp Act’). As per Stamp Act, the agreement of sale of immovable property attract payment of stamp duty of 5% of the market value of the property. While so, the agreement of sale/Ex.A1 was executed only on a Rs.100/- stamp paper and the same is insufficient. Further, Ex.A3/receipt-cum-letter of delivery of possession attracts stamp duty in terms of Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. Since there was deficit stamp duty paid on both the documents, said documents ought not to have been exhibited and ought not to be considered even for collateral purpose. Insufficiently stamped documents are inadmissible in evidence. Since said documents ought not to have been exhibited, respondent No.1 herein/defendant No.2 filed petition under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC to de-exhibit said documents.

4. The petitioner herein filed counter before the trial Court denying the averments of the petition referring to each paragraph. However, the specific contention about insufficiency of stamp duty being the reason for de-exhibiting has not been addressed.

5. The learned trial Court considered the case of respondent No.1 for de-exhibiting referring to Sections 35, 36 and 61 of the Stamp Act and the judgment of this Court in the case of Venu Gopal Bald