Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions arising from a civil suit for eviction filed by the original plaintiff (Dr. Smt. Seema Arun Mankar) against the original defendant No.1 (Shri Pradeep Shyamrao Kakirwar) and others in the Small Causes Court at Nagpur. The defendant No.1 sought to rely on a photocopy of an agreement of tenancy dated 26/10/1999, which was unstamped. The trial court rejected the document, but on appeal, the District Judge-5, Nagpur, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 208 of 2019, allowed the appeal and directed that the photocopy be impounded for payment of stamp duty and penalty, and thereafter exhibited for collateral purpose. Both parties challenged this order: the plaintiff in Writ Petition No. 7175/2019 and the defendant No.1 in Writ Petition No. 8245/2019. The High Court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, particularly Section 34, which deals with impounding of instruments. The court held that the power to impound under Section 34 applies only to original instruments, not to photocopies. Since the document in question was a photocopy of an unstamped agreement, it could not be impounded. The court further held that for a document to be admitted for collateral purpose, the original must be duly stamped. As the original was not produced and the photocopy was of an unstamped document, the order of the District Judge was set aside. The court allowed the plaintiff's writ petition and dismissed the defendant's writ petition, restoring the trial court's order rejecting the document.
Headnote
A) Stamp Act - Impounding of Document - Photocopy of Unstamped Agreement - Section 34 of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 - The court considered whether a photocopy of an unstamped agreement of tenancy can be impounded and admitted for collateral purpose. Held that a photocopy of an unstamped document cannot be impounded under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, as the provision applies only to original instruments. The document can be admitted for collateral purpose only if the original is duly stamped. (Paras 2-10) B) Evidence Act - Secondary Evidence - Admissibility of Photocopy - Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court examined the admissibility of a photocopy as secondary evidence. Held that a photocopy of an unstamped document cannot be admitted for collateral purpose unless the original is proved to be duly stamped. The court set aside the order of the District Judge allowing impounding of the photocopy. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a photocopy of an unstamped agreement of tenancy can be impounded and admitted for collateral purpose under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 7175/2019 (filed by the plaintiff) and dismissed Writ Petition No. 8245/2019 (filed by the defendant). The order of the District Judge dated 03/10/2019 was set aside, and the order of the trial court rejecting the document was restored.
Law Points
- Impounding of document
- Stamp duty
- Collateral purpose
- Photocopy of unstamped agreement
- Section 34 of Maharashtra Stamp Act
- 1958
- Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act
- 1899
