Unstamped document — Document not duly stamped not admissible even for collateral purpose — Stamp Act, 1899, section 35 — Public Document — Evidence Act, Section 74.

The Trial Court on the objection raised by the respondent with regard to admissibility of partition deed had held that the same was inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it was neither registered, nor properly stamped.

The Court on further appeal observed that section 36 of the Stamp Act provides that where an instrument had been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in section 61 thereof, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not duly been stamped. Section 35 of the Act casts a duty on the Court not to admit in evidence any document which is not duly stamped. Similarly section 36 bars the objection with regard to admissibility of a document at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. One of the essential elements of estoppels by conduct is that the party against whom it is pleaded, should have made some representation intended to induce a course of conduct by the party to whom it was made.

Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (1872 Act) provides that the documents which are on record of the acts of the Court are public documents within the meaning of section 74(1)(iii) of the 1872 Act. There is distinction between the record of the acts of the Court and record of the Court. A private document does not become public document because it is filed in the Court. To be a public document it should be a record of act of the Court. In the instant case, admittedly, the partition deed was marked as exhibit. Marking of an exhibit on the document is an act of the Court. Thus, the partition deed is record of the act of the Court and is thus a public document within the meaning of section 74(1)(iii) of the 1872 Act.

The other issue i.e., whether the partition deed which is unregistered and unstamped can be looked into for collateral purposes. It is well settled in law that relevancy, admissibility and proof are different aspects which should exist before a document can be taken into evidence. Mere production of certified copies of public documents does not prove the same, as the question of its admissibility involves that contents must relate to a fact in issue or a facet relevant under various sections of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, merely because the document in question is a public document, it is not per se admissible in evidence. It is required to be stamped under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Court further relying on the Supreme Court decision in case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay K. Mishra, AIR 2009 SC 1489 held that if a document is not duly stamped it would not be admissible even for collateral purpose.