LAKKARAJU RADHA KRISHNA Vs. PYARLE RAMA SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.34 of 2003 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur, against respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioner herein, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 05-05-2003 in respect of the land in R.S.Nos.971/1 and 971/2 of Vengalanagar, Bapatla. The petitioner herein, figured as defendant No.4 in the suit. The trial of the suit is in progress. On behalf of the petitioner, a document dated 05-05-2003 was sought to be relied upon. Initially, it was received in evidence, as Ex.B-8, subject to the objection raised by the respondents 1 and 2 (for short 'the respondents', since it is endorsed that the other respondents are not necessary). Respondents filed a revision before this Court against the said endorsement. The revision was allowed and the question, relating to the admissibility of the document, was directed to be decided, before the document was received in evidence. It was in this context, that the petitioner on the one hand, and the respondents, on the other hand, have put forward their contentions, on the admissibility of the document. Through a reasoned order, dated 23-01-2006, the trial Court held that the document is inadmissible. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.

(2.) Sri A. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document in question is a certified copy obtained from another court, and the objection, as to absence or inadequacy of stamp duty; cannot be raised. He contends that the petitioner is not a party to the transaction, under the document in question, nor does he propose to enforce any rights and obligations under it, and in that view of the matter, it ought to have been received in evidence.

(3.) Sri M.Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the prohibition contained under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act') is absolute, and unstamped document cannot be received in evidence, for any purpose, whatever. Placing reliance upon several judgments, touching on the subject, he contends that even a secondary evidence, of an instrument, which was required to be stamped, is inadmissible, unless it is properly stamped. He submits that the purpose, for which the document is sought to be relied upon, becomes irrelevant, in the context of Section 35, unlike the facility created for admission of unregistered documents; for collateral purposes.