AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN versus VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA

AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN versus VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA

Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies even when an unregistered sale deed is sought to be admitted for a collateral purpose such as recovery of consideration; the document cannot be admitted for any purpose unless adequately stamped. The bar in section 35 is absolute and supersedes the Registration Act’s...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Avinash Kumar Chauhan; Respondent: Vijay Krishna Mishra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposal – Supreme Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Unstamped and Unregistered Sale Deed, Recovery of Consideration Amount, Stamp Act Sections 33 and 35, Registration Act Section 49, Impounding of Documents
Property Law Stamp Duty Law Registration Law Admissibility of Unstamped and Unregistered Sale Deed Recovery of Consideration Amount Stamp Act Sections 33 and 35 Registration Act Section 49 Impounding of Documents

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avinash Kumar Chauhan

Appellant

Vijay Krishna Mishra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposal – Supreme Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 bar admissibility of an unregistered, insufficiently stamped sale deed for collateral purposes
  2. 2 Whether section 35 of the Stamp Act overrides section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908
  3. 3 Whether an instrument not duly stamped can be relied upon for recovery of consideration (collateral purpose)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies even when an unregistered sale deed is sought to be admitted for a collateral purpose such as recovery of consideration; the document cannot be admitted for any purpose unless adequately stamped. The bar in section 35 is absolute and supersedes the Registration Act’s proviso allowing collateral use; the impounding and penalty order was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; impounding and penalty order confirmed; no order as to costs