The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in MANU/SC/8502/2008 : 2009 AIR SCW 97, observed that where possession of property has been transferred under any instrument, in absence of payment of stamp duty, such instrument cannot be admitted even for collateral purpose or to corroborate oral evidence. There is total and absolute bar as to admission of unstamped instrument, unless there is compliance with requirements of provisos to Section 35. {Para 17}
18. In this background, if unstamped instrument is admitted even for collateral purpose, it would amount to receiving such document in evidence for a purpose which is prohibited under Section 35 of Stamp Act. The bar against admissibility of instrument which is chargeable with stamp duty and is not stamped is of course absolute whatever be the nature of purpose, be it for main or collateral purpose, unless requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are complied with.
19. The similar issue was considered by High Court of Karnataka in case of Smt. Dyavamma Alias Sanna Mukkamma Vs. Smt. Balamma and Others reported in MANU/KA/0842/2010 : ILR 2010 KAR 3280, that instruments which are not duly stamped are not only inadmissible in evidence, but the Court cannot act upon it, or consider the same for any relief like temporary injunction till such time both duty and penalty are paid. In case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari & Another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Others reported in MANU/SC/1141/2015 : 2015:INSC:755 : (2015) 16 SCC 787, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if party wanted to rely upon document for collateral purpose, it was upon for him to pay stamp duty together with penalty and get document impounded.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Writ Petition No. 13409 of 2023
Decided On: 29.07.2025
Salim Baig Vs. Sayyad Nawid
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:19926, MANU/MH/4610/2025
Print Page