LexBIDYUT SARKAR & ANR. versus KANCHILAL PAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 984 : 2024 INSC 704 Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. v. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10509-10510 of 2013) 28 August 2024 [Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards admissibility of the insufficiently stamped agreement to sell. Headnotes† Stamp Act, 1899 – ss.35, 36, 40 and 42 – Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. – Suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement to sell, filed by the respondent no. 1 against the defendant no. 1-owner of the property – Trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that the agreement to sell not admissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped – Appeal thereagainst by the respondent no. 1 allowed by the High Court – Appellants, in whose favour the defendant no. 1 had executed the sale deed filed cross objections against the findings of the trial court recorded against them, dismissed by the High Court – However, as regards admissibility of the agreement to sell it was held that as the respondent no. 1 had accepted that he would pay the deficient stamp duty and penalty as assessed by the collector, the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that the agreement to sell, could not be enforced being executed on insufficiently stamped paper – Correctness: Held: No reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court regarding the inadmissibility of the agreement to sell – Document, being insufficiently stamped, was rightfully barred from being admitted as evidence in the absence of the requisite stamp duty and penalty being paid and certified by the Collector – As the document was found to be insufficiently stamped and was marked as exhibit with objection and that objection having not been removed or cured, no benefit of s.36 could be extended to the respondent no.1 – High Court did not consider the statutory provisions and only proceeded to rely upon the statement of the respondent [2024] 8 S.C.R. 985 Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. v. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. no.1 that he had accepted to deposit the deficiency in stamp duty and penalty, if any, imposed by the Collector – Even till date, the respondent no.1 has not made any efforts before the Collector to get the deficiency and penalty determined on the impounded document and to clear the same – As a result, the document remains inadmissible in evidence under the express bar imposed by s.35 – Failure to resolve the deficiency in stamp duty prevents the document from being considered as admissible and valid in evidence – Thus, until the necessary stamp duty and penalty are duly paid and endorsed by the Collector, the instrument remains legally barred from being admitted in evidence – High Court failed to recognize that an insufficiently stamped document can only be admitted into evidence after the deficiency in stamp duty and any applicable penalty has been duly paid and cleared – This lapse of procedure not properly addressed by the High Court – As the document is foundational to the suit, the failure to comply with the statutory requirements renders the entire claim unenforceable – Respondent no. 1 cannot claim relief on the basis of a document that has not satisfied the legal requirements for admissibility – Thus, the impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the trial court dismissing the suit restored. [Paras 21-27, 30, 32, 33] Case Law Cited Ram Rattan (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bajrang Lal and Others, AIR 1978 SC 1393; Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655 – referred to. List of Acts Stamp Act, 1899. List of Keywords Instruments not duly stamped; Admissible in evidence; Suit for specific performance of contract; Agreement to sell; Insufficiently stamped; Cross objections; Deficient stamp duty and penalty. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10509-10510 of 2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2008 of the High Court of Calcutta in FA No. 282 of 2006 and COT No. 2304 of 2005 986 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Subrata Dutt, Ms. Shipra Ghose, Advs. for the Appellants. Shubhayu Roy, Rohit Dutta, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Ms. Priyata Chakraborty, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. These appeals, by defendant nos.2 and 3, have been filed assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 05.12.2008
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.