VIJAY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

VIJAY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The agreement dated 04.02.1988 was not chargeable with stamp duty under the law in force on the date of its execution and the Explanation inserted in Article 23 by the Madhya Pradesh amendment creates a new obligation which cannot be applied retrospectively; therefore Section 35 of the Stamp Act does not bar the admissibility of secondary evidence of that agreement and the plaintiff may be permitted to lead secondary evidence subject to compliance with the requirements of the Evidence Act.

Parties
Appellant: Vijay; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order (w.p. No. 741/2004) to the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Documents, Secondary Evidence, Stamp Duty Liability, Retrospective Application of Statutory Explanations, Specific Performance
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Evidence Act, 1872 Interpretation of Statutes Constitutional Law (distribution of Legislative Powers) Admissibility of Documents Secondary Evidence Stamp Duty Liability Retrospective Application of Statutory Explanations +1 more

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay

Appellant

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order (w.p. No. 741/2004) to the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies to the agreement(s) to sell dated 04.02.1988 executed by the parties
  2. 2 Whether a copy of a document can be adduced as secondary evidence when the original instrument is not in possession of the party
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Jupadi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subha Rao is binding on the facts of the present case

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement dated 04.02.1988 was not chargeable with stamp duty under the law in force on the date of its execution and the Explanation inserted in Article 23 by the Madhya Pradesh amendment creates a new obligation which cannot be applied retrospectively; therefore Section 35 of the Stamp Act does not bar the admissibility of secondary evidence of that agreement and the plaintiff may be permitted to lead secondary evidence subject to compliance with the requirements of the Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the 19th Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 46/A/03 and as affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 30.11.2009 in W.P. No. 741/2004 are quashed and set aside
  • Order dated 17.07.2001 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge is restored