Once a document is admitted, rightly or wrongly, in the evidence, it is not permissible under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, at any subsequent stage of the Suit to reject the said document and it has to be acted upon as a document duly stamped, even though it forms foundation of the Suit

The Bombay High Court further held that Section 35 of the Stamp Act only gives finality to the decision in regard to the admissibility of the said document in evidence, it however does not operate as a bar for impounding of the said document.

The above ratio was passed by the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Priya vs. Parsuram Printers & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2810 of 2019 decided on 29.04.2019.

Challenge

A Suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff tendered the alleged agreement of sale during the course of her examination-in-chief in the aforesaid Suit. The petitioner/defendant no. 4 filed an application for impounding of the said agreement of sale for the reason that the same falls in the ambit of ‘Conveyance’ and was liable to be endorsed on full stamp duty as payable for ‘Conveyance’ as per the provisions under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The said application was rejected by the trial court.

It was contended by the petitioner/ defendant no. 4 that agreement of sale tendered by plaintiff during the course of her evidence could not have been admitted by the Court since it was insufficiently stamped. It was further contended that the Trial Court had failed in appreciating that mere exhibition of the document does not mean that the document is admitted in the evidence and without complying the provisions of Order XIII Rule 4 of the CPC the document cannot be said to be properly admitted in evidence. For the said reason the bar of Section 35 of the Stamp Act would apply to the said document.

On the other hand it was contended by the Respondents that that once the document has been exhibited, admissibility of the said document for insufficiency of stamp cannot be questioned.

Held

At the very outset the Bombay High Court observed that it is an undisputed fact that the said document had been exhibited by the Trial Court and no objection was raised by any of the parties to the said Suit when the Court exhibited the said document. Admittedly, the Application for impounding was filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 4 after the examination-in-chief of PW-1 and her cross-examination by defendant Nos.2 and 3 was completed wherein the said document was referred to.

As regards the contention with respect to non-compliance of Order XIII Rule 4 of CPC, the Court observed that merely because there is some non-compliance as envisaged under Order XIII Rule 4 of the CPC, it cannot be concluded that the agreement of sale is not admitted in the evidence by the Trial Court as an endorsement under Order XIII Rule 4 is only a ministerial act.

The court held that once a document is admitted, rightly or wrongly, in the evidence, it is not permissible under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, at any subsequent stage of the Suit or proceeding whether it is the Court of Appeal or Revision or the Trial Court, to reject the said document and it has to be acted upon as a document duly stamped, even though it forms foundation of the Suit. However, the Court went on to hold that though the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner to the effect that the said document shall not be held admissible in the evidence however, there was no reason to reject another request made by the petitioner to impound the said document.

The Court held that though the admissibility of the said document in evidence cannot be questioned in view of the provisions under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the same would not operate as a bar for impounding of the document in question. It was held that the object of Section 33 of the Stamp Act is to safeguard the revenue. Section 35 of the Stamp Act only gives finality to the decision in regard to the admissibility of the said document in evidence, it however does not operate as a bar for impounding of the said document.

The Bombay High Court ultimately ordered for the Trial Court to proceed with the matter without waiting for the decision of the Collector on the issue of impounding.