Stamp Papers – Use of old stamp papers i.e., stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to proposed date of execution may certainly be a circumstance that can be used as a piece of evidence to cast doubt on authenticity of agreement but that cannot be clinching evidence to invalidate the agreement. [Indian Stamps Act,1899, Section 54].

Thiruvengadam Pillai vs. Navaneethammal and Anr (2008) 4 SCC 530.

In
this case, the Apex Court was concerned with the issue whether where
the stamp papers used in the agreement of sale were more than six months
old, they were not valid stamp papers and consequently, the agreement
prepared on such ‘expired’ papers was also not valid. This issue
required interpretation of section 54 of The Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

The
Apex Court held that The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 nowhere prescribes any
expiry date for use of a stamp paper. Section 54 merely provides that a
person possessing a stamp paper for which he has no immediate use (which
is not spoiled or rendered unfit or useless), can seek refund of the
value thereof by surrendering such stamp paper to the Collector provided
it was purchased within the period of six months next preceding the
date on which it was so surrendered. The stipulation of the period of
six months prescribed in section 54 is only for the purpose of seeking
refund of the value of the unused stamp paper, and not for use of the
stamp paper. Section 54 does not require the person who has purchased a
stamp paper, to use it within six months. Therefore, there is no
impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to the
proposed date of execution, being used for a document. Even assuming
that use of such stamp papers is an irregularity, the court can only
deem the document to be not properly stamped, but cannot, only on that
ground, hold the document to be invalid.

The fact that very old
stamp papers of different dates have been used, may certainly be a
circumstance that can be used as a piece of evidence to cast doubt on
the authenticity of the agreement. But that cannot be a clinching
evidence.