UTHUPPAN ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the fourth defendant in OS No. 379 of 1980 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry. The suit was one for realisation of a loan amount from defendants 1 to 3. The petitioner was an assignee of the ice plant which belonged to the first defendant in the suit. Evidencing the above assignment the petitioner produced a document styling itself as an assignment deed. The above instrument was executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 3/-. The above document, though produced by the petitioner, was not either tendered in evidence or marked as exhibit. The petitioner was also not examined. The suit was finally decreed against defendants 1 to 3 and dismissed against the petitioner. The learned Munsiff passed an order stating that a stamp duty of Rs. 1,787/- was payable along with penalty of Rs. 17,870/-. The third respondent was directed to realise the above amount. When the third respondent took action pursuance to the order of Munsiff Court, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent. The first respondent forwarded the revision petition before the second respondent and the second respondent in turn referred the matter to the third respondent for decision.

(2.) The third respondent by Ext. P1 order directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,787/- as stamp duty and Rs. 5,361/- as penalty. The petitioner filed a revision before the second respondent which was dismissed by Ext. P2 order. Aggrieved by Exts. P1 and P2 the petitioner filed revision before the first respondent which was also dismissed by Ext. P4.

(3.) Sri. N. Govindan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the action of the learned Munsiff in directing to levy stamp duty and penalty is without any jurisdiction. Unless the document in question was tendered in evidence by way of marking as an exhibit the Court cannot levy any penalty for insufficiency of stamp duty. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note various provisions contained in the Kerala Stamp Act with regard to the impounding of document and imposition of penalty. According to S.33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, every person who has authority to receive evidence under law before whom any instrument is produced shall impound the same if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped. According to S.34, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence unless such instrument is duly stamped. S.35 states that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be questioned at any stage of any suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Under S.37, the person impounding an instrument under S.33 shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of the instrument with a certificate stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect of the instrument.