SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY versus SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

;., )--' 
SHY AMAL KUMAR ROY 
A 
v. 
SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Stamp Act, 1899: 
.. 
Sections 36 and 38-Document admitted in evidence-Objection raised 
later regarding its admissibility-Permissibility of-Held: Not permissible- c 
Party having consented to the document being marked as exhibit loses his 
right to reopen the question-West Bengal Amendment Act does not contain 
any contrary law-lncfian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990-
Section 33(4) and (5)-Evidence Act, 1882. 
Parties entered into an agreement for development of suit property. D 
Dispute arose between them. Respondent filed suit for declaration and 
permanent injunction. Trial Couii passed interim order of injunction. High 
Court in revision set aside the order of injunction. Respondent thereafter filed 
suit for specific performance. During the hearing, respondent filed 
Development Agreement. The same was exhibited without any objection on E 
the part of appellant. Two years later, the appellant filed an application for 
sending the said Agreement to the Collector for impounding in terms of 
Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Trial Court dismissed the 
application, which was upheld by High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the Courts below had F 
committed a manifest error in relying on Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 
which cannot be said to have any application in the instant case, in view of the 
amendment made by the State of West Bengal therein, which came into force 
'-• 
on 31.1.1994. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. There is no doubt that in terms of Section 33 of the Indian 
Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by the State of West Bengal, a duty is cast upon 
the authorities concerned including the Courts to impound a document where 
47 
H 
~ t 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A the instrument produced before it is insufficiently stamped. When a deficiency 
in stamp duty is brought to the notice of the Collector or it otherwise comes 
to his notice, he may call for the instrument for the purpose of satisfying 
himself as to the adequacy placed thereon and proceed to deal with the 
instrument in terms of Section 38 thereof. 153-B) 
B 
1.2. Section 36, however, provides for a 'stand alone' clause. It 
categorically prohibits a court of law from reopening a matter in regard to 
the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument in the 
event the same has been admitted in evidence. (53-C] 
C to. 
Javer Chand & Ors. v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR (1961) SC 1655, referred 
2. It is of-little or no consequence as to whether a document has been 
admitted in evidence on determination of a question as regards admissibility 
thereof or upon dispensation of formal proof therefor. If a party to the lis 
D mtends that an instrument produced by the other party being insufficiently 
stamped should not be admitted in evidence, he must raise an objection thereto 
a~ the appropriate stage. He may not do so only at his peril. Objection as 
regards admissibility of a document, thus, specifically required to be taken 
that it was not duly stamped. On such objection only the question is required 
to be determined jl!.dicially. If no objection had been made by Appellant herein 
E in regard to the admissibility of the said document, he, at a later stage, cannot 
be permitted to turn round and contend that the said document is inadmissible 
in evidence. Appellant having consented to the document being marked as an 
exhibit has lost his right to reopen the question. 154-B-D, G, HJ 
Ram Rattan (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Bajrang Lal & Ors., 
F AIR (1978) SC 1393 and Vemi Reday Kota Reddy v. Vemi Reddy Prabhakar 
Reddy, [2004J 3 ICC 832, held inapplicable. 
3. The object of Indian Stamp Act is to collect revenue and the 
amendments carried out by the State of West Bengal provides for more 
G stringent steps in that behalf. By reason of Sub-Section (4) of Section 33 of 
the West Ber.gal Act, a duty has been cast upon the court to apply its mind 
when an instrument having insufficient stamp duty is brought to its notice, 
but, only thereby Section 3.6 of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be made 
inapplicable. Section 36, applies on its own force. Appellant filed an application 
under Sect;on 38 of the Indian Stamp Act. The said provisions were clearly 
H not applicable as thereby procedure has been laid down as to what steps are 
... 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.