HARIOM AGRAWAL versus PRAKASH CHAND MAL VIYA

HARIOM AGRAWAL versus PRAKASH CHAND MAL VIYA

A copy of an instrument (photocopy), even if the original was lost and improperly stamped, cannot be impounded or admitted as secondary evidence under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Only the original instrument can be impounded or certified to be duly stamped. Sections 33, 35, 37, Rule 19, and Section 48-B do not allow impounding or validation of copies for evidentiary purposes.

Parties
Appellant: HARIOM AGRAWAL; Respondent: PRAKASH CHAND MAL VIYA
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Impounding of Documents, Secondary Evidence, Improper Stamping, Application of Stamp Act Provisions
Stamp Duty Evidence Law Impounding of Documents Secondary Evidence Improper Stamping Application of Stamp Act Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HARIOM AGRAWAL

Appellant

PRAKASH CHAND MAL VIYA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can impound the photocopy of an instrument (document) of improper description under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
  2. 2 Whether a photocopy of a document can be admitted as secondary evidence where the original was lost but improperly stamped.

Ratio Decidendi

A copy of an instrument (photocopy), even if the original was lost and improperly stamped, cannot be impounded or admitted as secondary evidence under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Only the original instrument can be impounded or certified to be duly stamped. Sections 33, 35, 37, Rule 19, and Section 48-B do not allow impounding or validation of copies for evidentiary purposes.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs