AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard both the counsel.
The respondents in the C.R.P. as petitioners filed application I.A. No. 757 pf 2005 in O.S.No. 60 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala u/s 151 CPC praying the court to direct the office to collect the stamp duty and penalty on the unstamped agreement dated 8.1.1981. The same was resisted mainly on the ground that inasmuch as the same is Xerox copy, the impounding of the document u/s 35 of the Indian Stamp Act would not arise. The learned judge placed reliance in K. Krishnan and Others Vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and Another, :and in L.S. Sankariaah v. Leafin India Ltd. 1991 (4) ALT 588 and in Babulal Shiva Shankar and Sri Brig Mohan Agarwal Vs. Sri Praveen Kumar Agarwal, : and recorded certain reasons and ultimately on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to other side, the application was allowed . It is brought to the notice of this Court that all these decisions are in relation to the impounding of insufficiently stamped document as such and not in relation to the secondary evidence or Xerox copies. The learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-plaintiff placed strong reliance in M. Madhava Reddy Vs. Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others, : in AIR 1971 1070 (SC) :and would contend that a copy of the document will not fall within the meaning of the definition of instrument u/s 2(14) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on Supreme Music Vs. Manilal G. Purohit and Others, : and on K. Narasimha Rao and Another Vs. Sai Vishnu, Minor, through his Mother Sirisha and Another, It is not a case where the impounding of the document as such on the ground that it is not sufficiently stamped had been prayed for. It is also stated that the document, in fact, which is produced is the Xerox copy of yet another Xerox copy of the original document.
Be that as it may, in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and Ors. (supra 5) and in C. Sreedhara Raja v. S. Vittoba Rao (Supra 4), this Court is of the considered opinion that the impounding of such Xerox copy under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act is impermissible.
Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set-aside and the C.R.P. is allowed. No order as to costs.