{"id":308464,"date":"2023-12-05T17:30:29","date_gmt":"2023-12-05T12:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=308464"},"modified":"2023-12-06T16:27:43","modified_gmt":"2023-12-06T10:57:43","slug":"section35-stamp-act-insufficiently-stamped-documents-cannot-prohibited-admission-not-chargeable-with-stamp-duty-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/05\/section35-stamp-act-insufficiently-stamped-documents-cannot-prohibited-admission-not-chargeable-with-stamp-duty-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"[Section 35 Stamp Act] Insufficiently stamped documents cannot be prohibited from admission in evidence, if not chargeable with stamp duty: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal against the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court upheld the validity of Section 35<\/a> of the Stamp Act, 1899<\/a> and the order of the Review Court, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol*<\/span>, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, held that the documents in question were not required to be stamped at the relevant period to attract the bar of Section 35<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a>. Further, a copy of a document can be adduced as secondary evidence if other legal requirements are met<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

The parties entered an agreement to sell on 04-02-1998, and pursuant to that, the appellant was allegedly put in possession by respondent. When respondent. denied the existence of such an agreement, appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract. In the said suit, appellant moved an application to file a copy of the agreement to sell, among other documents, as secondary evidence. Initially, the said application was allowed by the Additional District Judge. But when respondent sought review of this order, the Court reviewed it and held that secondary evidence of an agreement to sell could not be allowed as it was not executed on a proper stamp, thus barred under Section 35<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a>. Subsequently, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the review order and the constitutional validity of Section 35<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a>. The High Court upheld the validity of the said Section and the order of the Review Court. Thus, the present appeal is filed.<\/p>\n

Issues and Analysis:<\/p>\n