In a groundbreaking decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper stamping for admissibility, stating that an insufficiently stamped document cannot serve as secondary evidence. The bench, led by Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, cited various legal precedents to underscore this principle.
Case Background: Battle Over Agreement to Sell
The case in question involved a dispute between a Plaintiff and a Defendant who entered into an agreement to sell on 04.02.1998. The Plaintiff sought specific performance of the contract and moved to submit a copy of the agreement as secondary evidence. However, the Additional District Judge rejected the application, citing a lack of proper stamping, a decision later upheld by the High Court. The Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.
Legal Arguments: Duel Over Stamp Duty and Admissibility
The Plaintiff’s counsel, Sr. Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, contended that the stamp duty requirement did not apply at the time of the agreement’s execution, predating the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1989. Therefore, Section 35 of the Stamp Act should not bar the introduction of the agreement as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
Conversely, the Defendant argued that an unstamped original document’s copy cannot be admitted as secondary evidence. The inadmissibility of the original document under the Stamp Act, the Defendant asserted, extended to its copy.
Court’s Analysis: Unraveling the Stamp Act and Evidence Act
Section 35 of the Stamp Act deems instruments not duly stamped as inadmissible evidence. The Court, recognizing the Act’s objective of collecting proper stamp duty, clarified that if a document is not chargeable with duty, Section 35 is inapplicable.
The Court scrutinized Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act, which permits secondary evidence when the opposing party or a third party possesses the original document, and refusal to produce it is evident. The Court acknowledged the ambiguity surrounding the document’s status in this case, with conflicting claims about its possession.
Verdict: A Nuanced Decision on Secondary Evidence
The Supreme Court concluded that, in this instance, the Plaintiff’s request to present secondary evidence should be granted. The court advocated for the concerned court to take possession of the documents, subject to independent admissibility determination under the Evidence Act.
This landmark decision provides clarity on the admissibility of unstamped documents, marking a significant development in evidentiary practices.
