Back
S.B.SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH
Avinash Kumar Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Krishna Mishra – Respondent
Question 1? What is the admissibility of an unstamped/unregistered instrument relied upon for collateral or separate purposes under the Indian Stamp Act? Question 2? What is the effect of Section 35 on admissibility of instruments not duly stamped for any purpose whatsoever? Question 3? What is the permissible use of unregistered documents for collateral purposes in light of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and its provisos?
Key Points: - The instrument in question was an unregistered deed of sale used to claim recovery of consideration; court held it is not admissible unless properly stamped and duty paid under Section 35 (!) (!) (!) . - Section 35 bars admission of any instrument chargeable with duty unless duly stamped, with proviso allowing admission on payment of duty/deficiency and penalties in certain cases (!) (!) (!) . - Even though there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act to receive an unregistered document for collateral purposes, such document must be duly stamped or comply with Section 35; otherwise inadmissible for collateral purposes (!) (!) . - The Court treated possession transfer and conveyance-like aspects as subject to stamp duty; an agreement to sell with possession transferred is deemed a conveyance for stamp duty purposes under Article 23 and its Explanation (!) (!) . - The decision discusses the balance between admissibility for main vs collateral purposes and cites Ram Rattan v. Parmanand and subsequent authorities on collateral use limits (!) (!) (!) . - The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit due to non-compliance with stamping requirements; there is no merit in admitting the unstamped instrument (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (for short ‘the Act’) calls for our consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th February, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissing a petition filed by the appellant herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 14th November, 2006 and 9th January, 2007 passed in Civil Suit No.1-B/2006 by the Additional District Judge, Gariaband, Raipur.
3. The undisputed fact of the matter is that the respondent herein, who is said to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe intended to transfer a house and land admeasuring 10150 sq. ft. situated at Village Gariyaband, District Raipur. A sum of Rs.2,70,000/- fixed by way of consideration towards the aforementioned transfer was paid to the respondent by the appellant. Possession of the said property had also been delivered.
4. Indisputably for the purpose of effecting transfer of the said land, permission of the Collector was required to be obtained in terms of Section 165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which was
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
