CHADOLU MANJULA DEVI LATE ALLAIAH Vs. BHAVANARI ANANTHA LAKSHMAMMA ALIAS SEETHARAVAMMA CHINNA VENKATRAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel.

(2.) 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 under Section 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 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act would not arise. The learned judge placed reliance in K.Krishnan Vs. T.T.Devasthanams(1995(2) ALT 122 (D.B.), and in L.S.Sankariaah Vs. M/s.Leafin India Ltd.(1991 (4) ALT 588), and in Babulal Shiva Shankar and another Vs. Praveen Kumar Agarwal(2005 (5) ALD 342 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 C.Sreedhara Raja Vs. S.Vittoba Rao2005 (3) ALT 434, in Jupudi Kesava Rao Vs. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and others,AIR 1971 S.C. 1070 and would contend that a copy of the document will not fall within the meaning of the definition of instrument under Section 2 (14) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on M/s.Supreme Music, Hyderabad Vs. Manilal G. Purohit and oners, 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.

(3.) Be that as it may, in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in Jupudi Kesava Rao Vs. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and others,(supra 5) and in C.Sreedhara Raja Vs. 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.