Singi Reddy Lavanya VsN. Jayamma

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated

10.02.2020 whereby the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, FAC Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District allowed I.A.

No. 261 of 2019 in O.S. No. 536 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff under Section 33 of the Stamps Act seeking to forward Ex. A.1, Agreement of sale,

dated 25.01.1998 to the District Registrar for impounding.

2) The learned counsel for the petitioners, who are defendants Nos. 2 & 3 in the suit, has mainly contended that although the suit was instituted in the

year 2009, the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 herein sought to impound the document i.e., Ex. A1, agreement of sale, dated 25.01.1998 at a belated stage

i.e., nearly after ten years of the institution of the suit and that the trial Court failed to observe that the ingredients of Sections 31 and 38 of the Indian

Stamp Act, 1899 are not attracted in the present case. The learned counsel has further argued that referring the document to the District Registrar for

impounding and collection of stamp duty and penalty is not proper, as the District Registrar is not a competent authority under the Act to impound the

said document, but it is only the Collector, who can do so under Section 40 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on

the decision of this Court reported in G. Ramesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District (2006) 6 ALT 476.

3) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, plaintiff has argued that the impounding of a document can be done at any

stage of the suit and that under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, once it is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court can also suo motu

send the document, which is not properly stamped or insufficiently stamped, for impounding and therefore, there is no perversity or illegality in the

impugned order warranting interference by this Court. To support his argument, the learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Isra

Fatima v. Bismilla Begum (2002) 5 ALD 660.

4) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5) A reading of provisions of Sections 33 & 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reveals that the Court can impound a document if it is not properly

stamped or insufficiently stamped.

6) Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act reads thus:-

“33. Examination and impounding of instruments.â€

(1) Every person having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except

an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his

functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.

(2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to

ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in 62 [India] when such instrument

was executed or first executed: Provided thatâ€

(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not

think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter

XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898);

(b) in the case of a Judge of a High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to

such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf.

(3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt,â€

(a) the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and

(b) [the State Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices.â€​

Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act reads thus:-

“36. Admission of instruments, where not to be questionedâ€" Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall

not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument

has not been duly stamped.â€​

7) The language in the above Section reveals that the Court can, at any point of time, impound a document, once it comes to the knowledge of the

Court that the said document is not properly stamped or insufficiently stamped for the purpose of collection of proper stamp duty and validating the

said instrument.

8) Admittedly, in the present case, the document was already marked as Ex. A.1 and the defendants, the petitioners herein have not taken any

objection with regard to the marking of the said document. The only objection raised by the petitioners is that the Sub-Registrar is not competent under

the Indian Stamps Act to validate the said document and it is only the Collector, who has the necessary power to validate the document.

9) The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has brought to the notice of the Court that the document which has been validated by the proper

authority under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, the endorsement made by the District Registrar and Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in order to

contend that even though in the order of the trial Court the word ‘Registrar’ is used, the document was sent to the Collector, who has

impounded the document and has collected the stamp duty along with penalty.

10) A perusal of the impounded document, which is marked as Ex. A.1 shows that vide File No. 3078/Court/2020, dated 07.09.2020, the instrument

has already been validated and the deficit stamp duty as well as the penalty has also been collected. The same has also been appended by the

Collector and District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, the objection taken by the petitioners that the instrument ought to have been

impounded only by the Collector, stands nullified. Even though there is no quarrel with the decisions relied on by the counsels, the same are not

applicable to the facts of the present case, as the document is already impounded by the Collector.

11) Insofar as the another objection with regard to the time lapse of 10 years is concerned, this Court, in a number of cases, has held that the

document can be impounded at any time when it is brought to the notice of the Court. Hence, the said objection is also unsustainable.

12) For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.

13) Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.