HYDERABAD: The Hyderabad High Court has held that it is the duty of a court of law to exclude all irrelevant or inadmissible evidence even if the opposite side has taken no objection to it.
“As improper stamp duty and penalty collected under misconstruction of documents, court may reject the same at any stage though the petitioners/defendants did not raise objection at the time of marking of documents,” the court observed.
Justice A Ramalingeswara Rao passed this order on a petition filed by a builder seeking setting aside of the order of a senior civil judge, Mahbubnagar district.
A suit had been filed before the lower court for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of some plots situated at Kalwakurthy town. The defendants filed a plea for collection of proper stamp duty and penalty stating that in the written statement filed by one of the defendants it was specifically stated that the agreements were not properly stamped as there was a recital in the said agreements that the possession of property was delivered to the plaintiff and thus they were inadmissible as evidence.
However, when the lower court directed the office to determine the payment of stamp duty and penalty on those documents, the office wrongly calculated the stamp duty and penalty on those documents without looking into the recitals in the documents with regard to delivery of possession. After the collection of stamp duty and penalty, those documents were marked under the mistaken impression that proper stamp duty and penalty was paid. In those circumstances, the defendants wanted to de-exhibit the agreements of sale.
A counter was filed by the plaintiff (petitioner before the High Court) stating that two agreements of sale were executed on stamp papers worth ` 50 and ` 100 respectively. With respect to the agreement of sale executed on the ` 50 stamp paper, the lower court imposed stamp duty and penalty and the amount was already remitted. In view of the same, the said document was marked as exhibit without any objection from the defendants. Therefore, the defendants cannot raise objection at the stage of cross-examination.
The lower court observed that if the agreement of sale, coupled with delivery of possession, was executed, the document had to be executed on a stamp paper as specified under Article 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and since the penalty was collected under Article 6, instead of Article 47-A, of the Act, both the documents were held to be insufficiently stamped documents. While allowing the application, the trial court had held that though the defendants did not raise objection at the time of marking of the documents, they can raise the objection with regard to their admissibility at a later point of time.
Challenging this order, a petition was filed before the high court. After perusing the material, justice Ramalingeswara Rao of the High Court has made it clear that the matter regarding admissibility of improperly stamped document does not become final on receiving the said document in evidence. The original court, can review the decision of admissibility of such document, he observed.