SHAIK DAVOOD SAHEB Vs. YEZZU RAMA MURTHY
LAWS(APH)-1992-2-83
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 27,1992

Shaik Davood Saheb Appellant
VERSUS
Yezzu Rama Murthy Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

B V R REDDY VS. ADONI CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL STORES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J. - (1.)THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller Guntur in refusing to send a document to the Collector for impounding. The eviction petition was filed against the petitioner herein on the grounds of wilful default and sub -lease. The defence set up by the tenant (revision petitioner) is that there is no sub -lease and that he is a partner of some partnership. To substantiate that contention he sought to mark in evidence the partnership deed. At the crucial time of marking that partnership deed as an exhibit the learned counsel for the landlord has taken objection on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped. It is at that stage that the petitioner has come forward with I A No. 1796/91 requesting the learned Rent Controller to send the document to the Collector for the purpose of impounding.
(2.)THE decision of this Court in BVR Reddy Vs. A. Co -op C, Stores : AIR 1975 A P 96 has no application to the facts of this case because in that case the party filing the document did not request the court to admit the document in evidence but merely wanted the court to send the document to the Collector to be dealt with under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. Under those circumstances the learned Judge held that the court has no option but to send the document to the Collector as provided under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned Judge held that the court cannot compel the party to pay stamp duty and penalty and have it admitted in evidence. But in this case that is not the factual position. The tenant while examining himself as R W 1 wanted to mark the partnership deed as an exhibit on his behalf. At that stage the learned counsel for the other side has taken objection for marking the said document on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped. Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act does not come in aid of the revision petitioner under those circumstances. Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act imposes a duty on the person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence to impound the document if it appears to him that such a document is not duly stamped. The learned Rent Controller is therefore perfectly justified in impounding the document and admitting the document in evidence upon payment of stamp duty and penalty as provided by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Sections 33(1) and 38(1) of the Indian Stamp Act are attracted to the facts of this case but not Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act.
The order of the learned Rent Controller is therefore perfectly correct and does not warrant any interference. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed at the stage of admission.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.