CUSTOM SEARCH

Loading...

TOPICS AVAILABLE IN THIS BLOG

SECTION 35 OF STAMP ACT AND SECTION 49 OF REGISTRATION ACT, BOTH BAR THE DOCUMENT BEING RECEIVED AS EVIDENCE, THE BAR IS ABSOLUTE UNDER STAMP ACT (UNLESS DEFICIT DUTY AND PENALTY IS PAID) AND THE BAR IS NOT ABSOLUTE UNDER REGISTRATION ACT.

Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das in the case of C.K. Ravi Prasanna vs T.K. Gowramma ILR 2007 KAR 2807, 2007 (5) KarLJ 344 This question came up for consideration before this Court in K. Amarnath v. Smt. Puttamma ILR 1999 KAR 4634, 2000 (4) KarLJ 55 wherein the scope of Section 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act came up for consideration. The Court held as under: The difference between Section 34 of (he Karnataka Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act should also be home in mind. Section 34 says "no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by...unless such instrument is duty stamped" Subject to the provision enabling the Court to collect the deficit Stamp duty, the bar under Section 34 is absolute and an instrument which is not duly stamped cannot be admitted at all in evidence for any purpose. On the other hand, Section 49 of the Registration Act which deals with the effect of non registration of documents provides that if a document which is required to be registered under law is not registered, then such document shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein, nor can it confer any power to adopt nor can it be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. But the proviso to Section 49 provides that an unregistered instrument may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purpose of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. For example, if a sale deed is executed on a white paper and is not stamped, it can neither be admitted in evidence nor be used for any purpose. But if a sale deed is executed on requisite stamp paper but is not registered and the executant refuses to admit registration, then the purchaser has a right to file a suit for specific performance, and rely on the sale deed, even though it was not registered, as evidence of the contract for sale. Thus, though both Section 34 of the Stamp Act (corresponding to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, both bar the document being received as evidence, the bar is absolute under Stamp Act (unless deficit duty and penalty is paid) and the bar is not absolute under Registration Act, Therefore under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act there is a bar for a document being received in evidence and the same is absolute unless deficit duty and penalty is paid. Therefore, for any purpose, the document which is not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence.

DOCUMENT NOT ADEQUATELY STAMPED OR REGISTERED CANNOT BE ADMITTED EVEN FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSE
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan V. Vijay Krishna Mishra - AIR 2009 SC 1489 submitted that the document in question being inadmissible in evidence could not be relied upon even for collateral purpose unless it was adequately stamped and was registered.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS IN SECTION 49 OF REGISTRATION ACT
The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of the proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs 100 and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act.

ONCE DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED CANNOT BE QUESTIONED LATER
Apex Court in the case Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Suranareported in AIR 1961 SC 1655, a Constitution Bench judgment. The relevant portion of the report reads to this effect:- "Once the Court rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. ........... Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial Court itself or to a Court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders, which are liabe to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction."

No comments:

KARNATAKA LAND LAWS