Holding

Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act apply to any instrument chargeable with duty irrespective of purpose, rendering the unstamped sale deed inadmissible even for collateral purposes and overriding Section 49 of the Registration Act.

Summary

The appellant, Avinash Kumar Chauhan, purchased land from respondent Vijay Krishna Mishra, a Scheduled Tribe member, and paid the full consideration and took possession, but the transfer required the collector’s permission under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, which was denied. Chauhan sued for recovery of the consideration and sought to rely on the unregistered sale deed, which was insufficiently stamped. The trial court impounded the deed under Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, and the High Court upheld the order. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of admission—whether for the main suit or a collateral purpose—does not affect the operation of Sections 33 and 35; an instrument chargeable with stamp duty must be duly stamped or the duty and penalty paid before it can be admitted, and Section 35 overrides the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, the deed was correctly impounded and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to an unregistered sale deed sought to be admitted for collateral purpose.
Whether the purpose for which a document is offered in evidence (main or collateral) affects the operation of Sections 33 and 35.
The effect of Section 35 of the Stamp Act on the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 regarding collateral admissibility.
The statutory bar on execution of a conveyance in a Scheduled Area without collector’s permission.

Legislation cited

Indian Stamp Act, 1899s. 2(10), s. 2(23), s. 2(26), s. 3, s. 33, s. 35, s. 36, s. 38
Registration Act, 1908s. 49
Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Subjects

stamp dutyunregistered deedcollateral purposeadmissibility of evidenceSection 33Section 35Registration ActScheduled Arealand transferimpoundment

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 944
•
A AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN
v.
VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA
(Civil Appeal No. 7350 of 2008)

DECEMBER 17, 2008
B
[S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Stamp Act, 1899 - ss. 33 and 35 and Article 23 of
Schedule 1A (as substituted by M.P. Act No. 19 of 1989) --
C Execution of sale deed - Execution whereof statutorily barred
- Suit by the vendee for recovery of consideration amount -
Reliance on the conveyance deed which was not registered
- Document impounded, being not duly stamped - Held:
Provision of ss. 33 and 35 are applicable, even if the
: unregistered document sought to be admitted in evidence is
D for collateral purpose - The purpose for which reliance is
placed on the document is not relevant for applicability of the
provisions - s. 35 rules out applicability of s. 49 of Registration
Act - On facts, the document rightly impounded - Registration
Act, 1908 - s. 49.
E Respondent-a member of Scheduled Tribe sold his
immovable property to appellant. Appellant paid the
consideration amount for the same, and respondent gave
the possession of the property to the appellant. However,
the permission for such transfer was not granted.
F Appellant filed a suit for recovery of the consideration
amount. He relied on the agreement which was sought
to be registered as a sale deed. As the document was not
duly stamped, the court impounded the same. The
challenge against the order was not entertained by High
G Court.
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that
since the unregistered sale deed was sought to be put
_)-
in evidence only for the purpose of recovery. of the
consideration amount i.e. for collateral purpose, the
944
H
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA 945
... provisions of ss. 33 and 35 of Stamp Act, shall not be A
' attracted.
A I
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
"""' --1.
HELD:1.1. The Parliament has, in Section 35 of Stamp
Act, used the words "for any purpose whatsoever". Thus,
the purpose for which a document is sought to be B
admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be
a relevant factor for not invoking the provision. The land,
in the instant case, is situated in a Scheduled Area.
j Execution of a deed of conveyance in respect of the land
situated in the schedule.d area is statutorily b~rred. All c
transactions can be effected only upon obtaining the
permission of the Collector in terms of the provisions of
Section 165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. An
instrument was executed. By reason of such an
instrument not only the entire amount of consideration D
was paid but possession of the property had also been
transferred. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [953-C-F]
"_, 1.2. By reason of the explanation appended to Article
23 of Schedule IA of the Stamp Act as inserted by M.P .
.

Act 19 of 1989 a legal fiction has been created. Although E
ordinarily an agreement to sell would not be subject to
payment of stamp duty which is payable on a sale deed,
but having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to
achieve the legislature thought it necessary to levy stamp
duty on an instrument whereby possession has been
transferred. [Para 15] [954-C-D] F
1.3. The possession of the property had been
{
delivered in favour of the appellant. He has, thus, been
exercising some right in or over the land in question.
Although the agreement was not registered, but
registration of the document has nothing to do with the G
validity thereof as provided for under the provisions of
the Registration Act, 1908. In the instant case, by reason
-'( of the statutory interdict, no transfer at all is permissible.
I
Even transfer of possession is also not permissible.
[Paras 16 and 19] [954-E-F] H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu 1992 Supp (2)
SCC 77 and Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati
and Ors. 2004 (10) SCC GS, referred to. -
1.4. Section 33 of Stamp Act casts a statutory
obligation on all the authorities to impound a document.
B The court being an authority to receive a document in
evidence is bound to give effect thereto.· The
unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which
required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed
of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not
C paid. The court, therefore,. was empowered to pass an
order in terms of Section 35 of Stamp Act. [Paras 17 and
18) [954-F-H]
1.5. It is not correct to say that the document was
admissible for collateral purpose. The Registration Act,
1908 provides for such a contingency in terms of the
0
proviso appended to Section 49 thereof. Section 35 of
Stamp Act, however, rules out applicability of such
provision as it is categorically provided therein that a
document of this nature shall not be admitted for any
purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the
document is sought to be brought in evidence are
excluded, the document would not be admissible for
collateral purposes. [Paras 19, 20 and 21) [955-A-G-D-E]
Ram Rattan v. Parmananad AIR 1946 PC 51, relied on.
Bandar Singh v. Nihal Singh 2003 (4) SCC 161,
distinguished.
Bhaskarabhot/a Padmanabhaiah and Ors. v. B.
Lakshminarayana and Ors. AIR 1962 A.P. 132; Sanjeeva
Reddi v. Johanputra Reddi AIR 1972 A.P. 373; T. Bhaskar
Rao v. T. Gabriel and Ors. AIR 1981 A.P. 175; Firm Chuni
Lal Tukki Mal v. Firm Mukat Lal Ram Chanda and Ors. AIR
1965 All. 164 and Chandra Sekhar Misra v. Gobinda Chandra
Das AIR 1966 Ori. 18, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2003 (4) SCC 161 Distinguished. Para 19
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA 947

1992 Supp (2) sec 11 Referred to. Para 19 A
2004 (10) sec 65 Refer~ed to. Para 19
\
....). AIR 1946 PC 51 Relied on. Para 22
AIR 1962 A.P. 132 Referred to. Para 22
AIR 1972 A.P. 373 Referred to. Para 22
AIR 1981 A.P. 175 Referred to. Para 22 B
AIR 1965 All. 164 Referred to. Para 22
AIR 1966 Ors. 18 Referred to. Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
j
7350 of 2008.
c
From the Judgment and final Order dated 27.02.2007 of
the High Court of Chattisgarh in at Bilaspur in W.P. No. 251/
2007.
A.K. Bajpai, M.F. Khan, Goodwill lndeevar for the
Appellant. D
Suhail Dutt, Ram Gupta, Jagit Singh Chhavra and Ravin
J..
Rao for the Respondent:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
""'
5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
E
2. Interpretation of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp
Act 1899 (for short 'the Act') calls for our consideration in this
appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th
February, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissing a petition filed by
F
the appellant herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the orders dated 14th November, 2006 and 9th January,
I
2007 passed in Civil Suit No.1-8/2006 by the Additional District
Judge, Gariaband, Raipur.
3. The undisputed fact of the matter is that the respondent
herein, who is said to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe G
intended to transfer a house and land admeasuring 10150 sq.
ft. situated at Village Gariyaband, District Raipur. A sum of
-'t Rs.2, 70,000/- fixed by way of consideration towards the
aforementioned transfer was paid to the respondent by the
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
948 [2008] 17 S.C.R.
...
A appellant. Possession of the said property had also been
/
delivered.
y-,
)
4. Indisputably for the purpose of effecting transfer of the
said land, permission of the Collector was required to be
obtained in terms of Section 165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue
B Code, 1959, which was applied for but rejected.
5. Appellant herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2, 70,000/
-. In support of his--case, the agreement dated 4th August, 2003
which was sought to be registered as a sale-deed has been
relied upon. ~
c The same was directed to be impounded by an order
dated 9th January, 2007, stating :-
"Under the Section 35(a) of the Stamp Act there is a
....
provision that for any such instrument or bill of exchange
or promissory note, subject to all just exceptions, will be
D admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the ...
same is chargeable or, in the case of an instrument
insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up ...
such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when
r-
ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion
E thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times
such duty or portion.
In the matter the agreement of sell produced is
valued Rs.2, 70,000/- which as per Article 23 of Indian
Stamp Act and as per Schedule 5, on the said amount
F stamp duty of 5.6% is leviable and the 7.5% of Rs.2,70,000/
- comes to Rs.20,250/;. In the agreement to sell Rs.60/-
is mentioned as stamp which means reducing the ) .
=
Rs.20,250 - Rs.60 Rs.20, 190 is less stamp duty paid,
10 times penalty of which will be leviable as per Section
35 of the Stamp Act means Rs.201900/- stamp duty will
G
be leviable. In this regard relevant case law is 'Kapur
Constructions vs. Lita Nagraj and Ors.,' AIR 2005
Karnataka 032. The plaintiff has paid Rs.20,850/- in the
C.C.D. so the rest of the amount of Rs.181050 be -,'>-
deposited within the next date of hearing and the Opposite
H
~

AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA 949
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

Party shall also file its counter reply by the next date of A
hearing."

-·
·~-1
\
-(_ 6. As noticed hereinbefore the High Court by reason of the
impugned judgment refused to interfere with the said order.
7. Mr. AK. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing on behalf
B
of the appellant would submit that having regard to the fact that
the said unregistered deed of sale was sought to be put in
evidence not for the purpose of enforcement of the contract but
only for the purpose of recovery of the amount of consideration,
j which indisputably has been paid to the respondent and such
a purpose, it was urged, being a collateral one, the provisions c
of Sections 33 and 35 of the Act shall not be attracted.
Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Jhe proviso
appended to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act as also
on the decision of this Court in Bandar Singh v. Nihal Sing(J,
[(2003) 4 sec 161], D
8. Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
).. . the respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned
"(' judgment.
9. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law
relating to Stamps. E

"Conveyance" has been defined in Section 2(10) to
mean:-
" "conveyance" includes a conveyance on sale and every
instrument by which property, whether moveable or F
immoveable, is transferred inter vivas and which is not
..... l otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I ;"
"Receipt" has been defined in section 2(23) of the Act to mean!-
" "receipt" includes any note, memorandum or writing-
(a) whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque G
or promissory note is acknowledged to have been
received, or

- ~ (b) whereby any other moveable property is acknowledged
to have been received in satisfaction of a debt, or
H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A (c) whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a debt or
demand, is acknowledged to have been satisfied or
discharged, or
(d) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgement

B and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of
any person."
"Stamp" has been defined in Section 2(26) to mean :-
" "Stamp" means any mark, seal or endorsement by
c any agency or person duly authorised by the State
Government, and includes an adhesive or impressed
stamp, for the purposes of duty cllargeable under this Act."
10. Chapter II of the Act provides for stamp-duties.
Section 3, which is the charging Section reads as under:-
-
D "3. Instruments chargeable with duty. - Subject to the
provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in
Schedule I, the following instruments shall be chargeable
....
with duty of the amount indicated in that Schedule as the
proper duty therefor, respectively, that is to say-
E (a) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule which,
not having been previously executed by any person,
is executed in India on or after the first day of July,
1899;
(b) every bill of exchange payable otherwise than on
F demand or promissory note drawn or made out of
India on or after that day and accepted or paid, or
resented for acceptance or payment, or endorsed,
transferred or otherwise negotiated, in India; and
(c) every instrument (other than a bill of exchange or
G promissory note) mentioned in that Schedule,
which, not having been previously executed by any
person, is executed out of India on or after ~hat day,
relates to any property situate, or to any matter or
thing done or to be done, in 8 [India] and is received
H in India. ·
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA 951
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in respect of- A
(1) any instrument executed by, or on behalf of, or in favour
-~ \ of, the Government incases where, but for this exemption,
.... -I
the Government would be liable to pay the duty chargeable
in respect of such instrument;
B
(2) any instrument for the sale, transfer or other disposition,
either absolutely or byway of mortgage or otherwise, of any
ship or vessel, or any part, interest, share or property of
or in any ship or vessel registered under the Merchant
j' Shipping Act 1894, or under Act 19 of 1838, or the Indian
Registration of Ships Act, 1841, as amended by c
subsequent Acts.
(3) any instru,ment executed ,by, or, on behalf of, or, in
favour of, the Developer , or Unit or in connection with the
carrying out of purposes of the Special Economic Zone,
D

-· ,._
Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, the
expressions "Developer", "Special Economic Zone" and
"Unit" shall have meanings respectively assigned to them~
in clause(g), (za) and (zc) of Section 2 of the Special
i Economic Zones Act, 2005."
The other provisions contained in the said chapter deal E
with the mode and manner of payment etc.
Chapter Ill of the Act provides for adjudication with regard'
·- to proper stamps; whereas Chapter IV deals with instruments
not duly stamped.
F
Section 33 casts a duty upon every person who has
.._.. authority to receive evidence and every person incharge of a
f public office before whom the instrument is produced, if it
appears to him that the same is not duly stamped, to impound
the same. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act lays down
the procedure for undertaking the process of impounding. G
Section 35 provides that an instrument shall be inadmissible
in evidence if the same is not duly stamped in the following
terms:-
'
i
"35 - Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in
-( H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A evidence, etc.
No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in
evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or (_~
consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall
be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such
B person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is
duly stamped :
Provided that--
(a) any such instrument shall be admitted in evidence
on payment of the duty with which the same is .),_
c chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument
insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to
make up such duty, together with a penalty of five
rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper
duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five
D rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or
portion;
,
(b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt ....
could have been demanded, has given an
'r
unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped,
E would be admissible in evidence against him, then
such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against
him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the
person tendering it;
(c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is
F effected by correspondence consisting of two or
more letters and any one of the letters bears the
proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be ~ ._;

deemed to be duly stamped;
(d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the
G admission of any instrument in evidence in any
proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a
proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898;
)-
(e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the
H admission of any instrument in any Court when such
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA 953
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the A
I
Government or where it bears the certificate of the
I
....; Collector as provided by section 32 or any other
provision of this Act."
11. Section 36 of the Act provides that where an instrument
has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, B
except as provided in Section 21 thereof, be called in question
at any stage of same suit or proceeding on the ground that the
instrument has not been duly stamped. Section 38 provides for
j the mode and manner in which the instrument impounded is to
be dealt with. c
12. The Parliament has, in Section 35 of the Act, advisedly
used the words "for any purpose whatsoever". Thus, the
purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in
evidence or the extent thereof would not be a relevant factor
for not invoking the aforementioned provisions. D
13. The land in the instant case is situated in a Scheduled
... Area. Execution of a deed of conveyance in respect of the land
situated in the scheduled area is statutorily barred. All
' transactions can be effected only upon obtaining the permission
of the collector in terms of the provisions of Section 165 (6) of
E
the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. We are, however, not
concerned with the said provisions.
14. Indisputably an instrument was executed. By reason of
such an instrument not only the entire amount of consideration
was paid but possession of the property had also been
F
transferred.
! Expla'nation appended to Article 23 of ~chedule IA of the
Stamp Act as substituted by M.P. Act No. 19of1989 reads as
under:-
"Explanation.- For the purpose of this Article, where in the G
case of agreement to sell immovable property, the
possession of any immovable property is transferred to the
purchaser before execution after execution of such
agreement without executing the conveyance ih respect
thereof, then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to
H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. , )

A be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be leviable
accordingly:
Provided that the provisions of section 4 7A shall apply
\- ~
mutatis mutandis to such agreement-which is deemed to
be a conveyance as aforesaid, as they apply to a
B conveyance under that section:
Provided further that where subsequently a conveyance is
effected in pursuance of such agreement of sale, the stamp
duty, if any, already paid and recovered on the agreement
of sale, which is deemed to be a conveyance shall be i
c adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the conveyance
subject to a minimum of Rs.10."
15. The said explanation has been inserted by M.P. Act
19 of 1989 with effect from 15th November, 1989. By reason
of the said provision, thus, a legal fiction has been created.
D Although ordinarily an agreement to sell would not be subject
to payment of stamp duty which is payable on a sale deed, but
having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve ....
the legislature thought it necessary to levy stamp duty on an r
instrument whereby possession has been transferred.
E The validity of the said provision is not in question.
16. It is not in dispute that the possession of the property
had been delivered in favour of the appellant. He has, thus, been
exercising some right in or over the land in question. We are
not concerned with the enforcement of the said agreement.
F Although the same was not registered, but registration of the
document has nothing to do with the validity thereof as provided
for under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 1
17. We have noticed heretobefore that Section 33 of the
Act casts a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound
G a document. The court being an authority to receive a document
in evidence is bound to give effect thereto.
18. The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which
_}-
required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of ...
conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid.
H The court, therefore, was empowered to pass an order in terms

(
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA 955
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

of Section 35 of the Act. A

• ..,- t 19. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
the document was admissible for collateral purpose, in our
opinion, is not correct. In Bandar Singh (supra) this Court was
not concerned with the provisions of the Act. Only interpretation
of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 was in question. B
It was opined :-
"The main question, as we have already noted, is the
question of continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the
_.J
suit lands. The sale deed dated 9-5-1931 by Fakir Chand,
father of the defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the c
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, is an admitted
document in the sense its execution is not in dispute. The
only defence set up against the said document is that it is
unstamped and unregistered and therefore it cannot
convey title to the land in favour of the plaintiffs. Under the D
law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and
Ai
registered before it can convey title to the vendee.
However, legal position is clear law that a document like
i
the sale deed in the present case, even though not
admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral
E
purposes. In the present case the collateral purpose to be
seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the
suit land. The sale deed in question at least shows that
initial possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not
illegal or unauthorized ... "
F
In this case, by reason of the statutory interdict, no transfer
,_ at all is permissible. Even transfer of possession is also not
permissible. [See Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu 1992
Supp (2) SCC 77 and Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur
Prajapati and Others (2004) 10 SCC. 65]
G
20. The Registration Act, 1908 provides for such a
contingency in terms of the proviso appended to Section 49
thereof, which reads as under:-
"49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be
registered. -
H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A No document required by section 17 or by any provision
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be
registered shall--
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
B
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting
such property or conferring such power,
unless it has be~n registered:
Provided that an unregistered document affecting
c immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may
be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific
performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act,
1877 (3 of 1877) or as evidence of any collateral
D transaction not required to be effected by registered
instrument."
21. Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability
of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a·
..
document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose t
E whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to
be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason
as to how the document would be admissible for collateral
purposes.
22. The view we have taken finds support from the
F decision of the Privy Council in Ram Rattan v. _Parmananad,
[AIR 1946 PC 51] wherein it was held :-
"That the words 'for any purpose' in Section 35 of the
Stamp Act should be given their natural meaning and
effect and would include a collateral purpose and that an
unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate
G
the oral evidence for the purpose of determining even the
factum of partition as distinct from its terms."
The said decision has been followed in a large number of
decisions by the said Court. In Bhaskarabhotla
H Padmanabhaiah and others v. B. Lakshminarayana and
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA 957
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

others [AIR 1962 AP. 132], it has been held:- A
"9. In this case, the learned Subordinate Judge has
j observed that what the plaintiff was trying to prove was not
the division in status but to show that the property was
divided under the partition deed. In any case, the fa,ct that
the document is inadmissible due to want of being B
stamped is clear. For, in Ram Rattan v. Parmanand, AIR
1946 PC 51, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that
the words 'for any purpose' in S. 35 of the Stamp Act should
be given their natural meaning and effect and would
j
include a collateral purpose and that an unstamped c
partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral
evidence for the purpose of determining even the factum
of partition as distinct from its terms."
It was furthermore held :-
"10. In the result, I agree with the learned Muns if- D'
Magistrate that the document is 'an instrument of partition'
under Sec. 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act and it is not
~
admissible in evidence because it is not stamped. But, I
further held that if the document becomes duly stamped,
' then it would be admissible to evidence to prove the
E
division in status but not the terms of the partition."
In Sanjeeva Reddi v.,Johanputra Reddi, [AIR 1972 AP.
373 ], it has been held :-
"9. While considering the scope of Section 35 of the Indian
Stamp Act we cannot bring in the effect of non-registration F
of a document under Section 49 of the Indian Registration
r Act. Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act deals with
documents, the registration of which is compulsory and
Section 49 is concerned only with the effect of such non-
registration of the documents which require to be
G
registered by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer
of Property Act. The effect of non-registration is that such
a document shall not affect any immovable property
covered by it or confer any power to adopt and it cannot
be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A property or conferring such power. But there is no
prohibition under Section 49 to receive such a document
which requires registration to be used for a collateral
purpose i.e. for an entirely different and independent
matter. There is a total and absolute bar as to the
admission of an unstamped instrument whatever be the
B
nature of the purpose or however foreign or independent
the purpose may be for which it is sought to be used,
unless there is compliance with the requirements _of the ..
provisos to Section 35. In other words if an unstamped
instrument is admitted for a collateral purposes. It would
c amount to receiving such a document in evidence for a
purpose which Section 35 prohibits. There is nothing in the
case of 8. Rangaiah v. 8. Rangaswamy, (1970) 2 Andh
WR 181 which supports the contention of the petitioner.
That was a case as pointed out by Kuppuswami, J., where
D there were two instruments though contained in one
document one a settlement in favour of the 4th defendant
therein and the other a will. It was therefore held that part
of the instrument which constitutes a will did not require any
stamp and will be admissible in evidence for proving the r
E bequest contained therein. It was for that reason that the
learned Judge said that Sec. 35 of the Stamp Act has no
application to a case where one of the separate
instruments relating to one such matters would not at all
be chargeable under the Act as in the case before him."
F In T. Bhaskar Rao v. T Gabriel and others, [AIR 1981 A.P.
175], it has been held :-
"5. Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that an
instrument chargeable with duty should be stamped so as
,- .,'I
to make it admissible in evidence. Proviso A to Section
G
35 of the Stamp Act enables a document to be received ,j
in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty if the '
document is chargeable, but not stamped or on payment
of deficit duty and penalty, if it is insufficiently stamped. The
bar against the admissibility of an instrument which is
chargeable with stamp duty and is not stamped is of
H

"I
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA 959
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

course absolute whatever be the nature of the purpose, be A
,.
\ it for main or collateral purpose, unless the requirements
\
of proviso (A) to Section 35 are complied with. It follows
"' that if the requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are
satisfied, then the document which is chargeable with duty,
but not stamped, can be received in evidence."
B
It was further held :-
"7. It is now well settled that there is no prohibition under
Section 49 of the Registration Act, to receive an
unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose.
But the document so tendered should be duly stamped or c
should comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the
Stamp Act, if not stamped, as a document cannot be
received in evidence even for collateral purpose unless it
is duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under Section
35 of the Stamp Act."
D
(See also Firm Chuni Lal Tukki Mal v. Firm Mukat Lal
J. Ram Chanda and others; [AIR 1965 All. 164] and Chandra
Sekhar Misra v. Gobinda Chandra Das, [AIR 1966 Ori. 18]).
" 23. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
this appeal which fails and is dismissed. However, in the facts E
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.