DEVARAKONDA SHANKARA MURTHY Vs. VEMULA RAJKMALLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2011 in OS No. 15 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein the learned Junior Civil Judge, over-ruled the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendants and permitted the document dated 01.06.2003 to be admitted in evidence. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

(2.) The respondent herein filed suit against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of '1,00,000/- due under a chit transaction. The petitioners-defendants filed written statement, contesting the suit. At the time of trial, when the plaintiff sought to exhibit a document dated 01.06.2003 in evidence, which was impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section 32 of the Stamp Act, vide certificate No. C/5534/05 dated 19.10.2005. As per the said certificate, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, impounded the document on payment of '3,015/- by the plaintiff towards stamp duty and penalty under Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The defendants raised an objection stating that the document was not properly impounded. The plaintiff contended before the trial court that as the document was already impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer and certificate was appended regarding payment of stamp duty and penalty and the same has become final and conclusive, the learned Junior Civil Judge, over-ruled the contention of the defendants and permitted the admissibility of the document relying upon the decision of this court in 'Sunkari Malakondaiah v. Sreekaram Malakondaiah., 1998 2 ALT 41', wherein this court held that 'once the procedure is followed under Sections 31 and 32 of the Stamp Act and Collector issues certificate under Section 32 of the Act, that becomes conclusive and by virtue of clause (e) of proviso to Section 35, the admissibility of the document cannot be challenged'.

(3.) Section 40(1) (b) states that when the Collector impounds the instrument under Section 33 and he is of the opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty not exceeding ten times of the duty. Section 42(1) of the Act states that when the duty and penalty in respect of the instrument have been paid inter-alia under Section 40, the person admitting such instrument in evidence or the Collector, as the case may be, shall certify by endorsement thereon that the proper duty and penalty have been paid in respect thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 states that every instrument so endorsed shall thereupon be admissible in evidence, and may be registered and acted upon and authenticated as if it has been duly stamped.