Time to Object Marking Documents – While Exhibiting; Failure, Amounts to Waiver

Taken from: Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a Photocopy?

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Introduction

Contents of documents can be placed before the court in two ways:

  1. producing the documents in original
  2. (by way of) secondary evidence.

Time to Place Objections

Before Trial: The objections as to the admissibility of documents can be placed on record, before trial (i) by raising them in pleadings, or (ii) by tendering positive statement (filing petition/ affidavit/ objection).

At the Trial: Two (apparently incongruent) propositions are seen strongly propounded as regards placing objections, at the trial –

  1. right-at-the-time of tendering the same for exhibiting;
  2. any time in trial (and not in appellate stage).

It is emphasised in Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, AIR 2021 SC 3873, that the objection is to be taken before a document is marked as an exhibit and admitted in Court, as the mode of proof falls within procedural law.

Mode of proof falls within Procedural Law

In Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, AIR 2021 SC 3873, it is held as under:

  • “23. This Court in the opinion written by Justice S. H. Kapadia in Dayamathi Bai v. KM Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107 has similarly held that objection as to the mode of proof falls within procedural law. Therefore, such objections could be waived. Moreover, objection is to be taken before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted in Court.
  • 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that plea regarding mode of proof cannot be permitted to be taken at the appellate stage for the first time, if not raised before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. This is to avoid prejudice to the party who produced the certified copy of an original document without protest by the other side. If such objection was raised before trial court, then the concerned party could have cured the mode of proof by summoning the original copy of document. But such opportunity may not be available or possible at a later stage. Therefore, allowing such objection to be raised during the appellate stage would put the party (who placed certified copy on record instead of original copy) in a jeopardy & would seriously prejudice interests of that party. It will also be inconsistent with the rule of fair play as propounded by Justice Ashok Bhan in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala (Supra).”

To the pointed question, when the objection is to be placed (either at the time of marking, or at any time in trial), the following assertions may be the feasible answer:

  • First – raise objection while Tendering/Exhibiting the document;
  • Second – raise objection in cross examination of the witness through whom it is marked;
  • Third – Place “objection” by filing an application, memo, affidavit etc. (at any time during trial); or
  • Fourth – place “objection” in the final argument in the trial court (to be reflected in the proceeding-paper or Judgment).
    • Note: 1. The third and fourth modalities can be invoked only if the right to object marking of document had not been expressly or impliedly waived.
    • 2. If the validity or genuineness of the document itself is a subject matter of issue, no objection need be raised.
    • 3. In a proper case, if objection as regards a document is already raised in pleadings, or tendered positive objection-statement (filing petition/ affidavit/ objection), specific objection may not be necessary.

Following decisions lay down that the objections to marking or exhibiting a document cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in appeal-

  • Pandappa v. Shivlingappa 47 BLR. 962;
  • Padman v. Hanwanta, AIR 1915 PC 111;
  • Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83;
  • Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655,
  • P. C. Purushottamman v. S. Perumal AIR 1972 SC 608;
  • Rafia Sultan Widow of Mirza Sultan Ali Baig v. Oil And Natural Gas Commission (I.C. Bhatt, S.B. Majmudar, JJ.), 1986 GujLH 27; 1985-2 GujLR 1315;
  • R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752.
  • Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, AIR 2021 SC 3873

Factual foundation, to give secondary evidence, must be established  

The party has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced [Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri: 2015 AIR (SCW) 6271].

Documents Marked Without Objection as to its MODE OF PROOF – Effect

The law prevails in India is the following –

  • If documents marked without objection as to its mode of proof,  it is not open to the other side to object to their admissibility afterwards.
  • Following are the important decisions in this line.
P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S.Perumal,(1972) 1 SCC 9 (Three Judge Bench – A.N. Grover, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Ray, JJ.)Admissibility of police reports without examining the Head Constables who covered those meetings. Those reports were marked without any objection.  Hence it was not open to the respondent to object to their admissibility.Relied on: Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram, AIR 1929 PC 110.
R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy and V.P.Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752 (R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan, JJ.)Photo copies were  admitted in evidence  without leading foundation – without objection. They cannot be held inadmissible for originals were not produced.Relied on: Padman v. Hanwanta, AIR 1915 PC 111 P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S.Perumal
Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082Objection to be taken    at     trial before document is marked as an ‘exhibit’.   Relied on: Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji R.V.E. Venkatachalam Gounder
Sarkar on Evidence .If copies of the documents are admitted without objection in the trial Court, no objection can be taken in appealReferred to in:
Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082.

Who Should Object FIRST – Court or Opposite Side?

There is divergence of judicial opinion as to saying ‘NO’ by court to marking a document with formal defect, beforehand it is objected by the other side. Eg. Tendering copy of a document without furnishing the ‘foundational evidence’ to admit secondary evidence.

First viewCourt is under an obligation to exclude inadmissible materials.
In H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam: AIR 2011 SC 1492, it is held: “Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. … The court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon.” (Followed in: U. Sree  v.  U. Srinivas: AIR 2013 SC 415.)
In Yeshoda v. Shoba Ram:  AIR 2007 SC 1721, it is held – “In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. .. The conditions laid down in the said Section (Section 65) must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section.
Second viewIf no objection for other side, Court cannot refrain from marking a document on its own volition (on the ground of formal defect).
R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy and V.P.Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752;
Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082.

It is pointed out in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v. Subodh Mody, 2009 (2) AIR Bom R 296, 2008-6 MhLJ 886 (FB) that the weight of the aforesaid authorities suggests that the objection to the admissibility of evidence should be raised by the objector and decided by view the Court at the earliest opportunity. (That is it supports the second view.)

Controversy resolved

  • 1. The court cannot object first. If no objection for other side, Court cannot refrain from marking a document on its own volition (on the ground of formal defect).
    • R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy and V.P.Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752;
    • Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082.
  • 2. If the deficiency is pertaining to non-registration of a compulsory registrable document (as it falls under the head, inadmissible document) the court can desist the marking of the document.
  • 3. By virtue of the decision, G. M. Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde, AIR 2024 SC 3339, unless the court has not applied its mind to the insufficiency of stamp, and unless there is a ‘judicial determination‘, the objection thereof can be raised at any time.

Why objection be taken at the proper time

When the party gives in evidence a certified-copy, or other secondary-evidence, without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, the opposite party must raise his objection (if any) at the proper time. The Privy Council in Padman v. Hanwanta, 1915 (17) BomLR 609: AIR 1915 PC 111, held as regards objection as to the admissibility of a certified copy of a will, as under:

  • “11. The defendants have now appealed to His Majesty in Council, and the case has been argued on their behalf in great detail. It was urged in the course of the argument that a registered copy of the will of 1898 was admitted in evidence without sufficient foundation being laid for its admission. No objection, however, appears to have been taken in the first Court against the copy obtained from the Registrar’s office being put in evidence. Had such objection been made at the time, the District Judge, who tried the case in the first instance, would probably have seen that the deficiency was supplied. Their Lordships think that there is no substance in the present contention.”

In case, objection is not raised at the relevant point of time, he is precluded from raising it at a belated stage. It stands waived. [Kaliya v. State of MP: 2013-10 SCC 758]

Odd View: Bipin Shantilal: Mark document Tentatively, and Decide Objection in Final Judgment

It was observed by the Supreme Court in 2001 in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (Three Judge Bench), AIR 2001 SC 1158, that ‘it is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection’. And, the Court directed as under:

  • “When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment.” (Quoted in: Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, AIR 2021 SC 3873; RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu , AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752)

Subsequent Contra view to Bipin Shantilal

Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 1158, spoke as to admissibility of

  • (i) documents (or material) and 
  • (ii) oral evidence (questions).

Bipin Shantilal did not favour taking a final decision as to marking an objected document (and receiving objected questions), then and there.

Contra view taken as regards objection to marking documents

  • The law laid down in Bipin Shantilal, as regards objection to marking documents (or material), had been (impliedly) reversed by RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu, AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752. It was held that the objection as to ‘mode of proof’ should be taken at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit, so that the defect can be cured by the affected party.

Contra view taken as regards objection to oral evidence

  • The view taken in Bipin Santilal as regards objection to recording oral evidence had been expressly varied, or reversed, by In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies In Criminal Trials v. State Of Andhra Pradesh (Three Judge Bench), 2021-10 SCC 598.

In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies

In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies In Criminal Trials v. State Of Andhra Pradesh (Three Judge Bench), 2021-10 SCC 598, considered oral evidence (questions) and ruled that Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 1158, stood modified (overruled), and directed as under:

  • “…….. Therefore, this court is of opinion that the view in Bipin Shantilal Panchal should not be considered as binding. The presiding officer therefore, should decide objections to questions, during the course of the proceeding, or failing it at the end of the deposition of the concerned witness.”

Courts in India Consistently follow RVE Venkatachala Gounder

In RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu (R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan, JJ.) AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752, it is held as under:

  • “17. The other document is the rent note executed by Defendant 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Here also the photocopy of the rent note was produced. Defendant 2 when in the witness box was confronted with this document and he admitted to have executed this document in favour of the plaintiff and also admitted the existence of his signature on the document. It is nobody’s case that the original rent note was not admissible in evidence. However, secondary evidence was allowed to be adduced without any objection and even in the absence of a foundation for admitting secondary evidence having been laid by the plaintiff.
  • 18. … 19. …
  • 20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1457] in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as “an exhibit”, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court.
  • 23. Since documents Exts. A-30 and A-34 were admitted in evidence without any objection, the High Court erred in holding that these documents were inadmissible being photocopies, the originals of which were not produced.”

RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu, AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752, is referred to and quoted with approval in the following decisions:

  • Dayamathi Bai v. KM Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082; 2004-7 SCC 107.
  • Directorate of Revenue v. Mohammed Nisar Holia, 2008 2 SCC 370;
  • Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd.  v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills, 2010-8 SCC 423;
  • Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR 2010 SC 1162; 2009-9 SCC 221;
  • Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics Pvt.  Ltd., AIR 2015 SC 3796; 2015-9 SCC 755;
  • Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, 2017 AIR SC 3441; 2017-8 SCC 570;
  • Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, AIR 2021 SC 3873;

Law does Not Favour Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat

It is definite that the courts in India consistently follow RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu (Two Judge Bench), AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752, and Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi (Two Judge Bench), AIR 2004 SC 4082: 2004- 7  SCC 107, declining Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (Three Judge Bench), AIR 2001 SC 1158.

In no subsequent case the Apex Court applied the dictum in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat. In State of NCT of Delhi v. Mukesh (Three Judge Bench), 2014-15 SCC 661, refuted to follow Bipin Shantilal Panchal observing as under:

  • “The decision referred to by the learned Counsel in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal [supra] has to be read and understood in that context.”

Sec. 36, Stamp Act: Once Admitted, Always Stand Admitted

The law applied in India, invoking Sec. 36 of the Indian Stamp Act (Sec. 35 of the State Act) is the following –

  • Once an (unstamped or insufficiently stamped) instrument has been admitted in evidence, then its admissibility cannot be contested at any stage of the proceedings.

In Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655: 1962-2 SCR 333, it was observed as under:

  • “4…. Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the court, rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. Section 35 is in the nature of a penal provision and has far-reaching effects. Parties to a litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to be circumspect and the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the court. The court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. … Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, Section 36* of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial court itself or to a court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction.” (*Section 36 of the 1899 Act is pari materia to section 35 of the 1957 Act.)

In Ram Rattan v. Bajrang Lal, (1978) 3 SCC 236, it was held as under:

  • “6. When the document was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box, objection having been raised by the defendants that the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped and for want of registration, it was obligatory upon the learned trial Judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and to decide the objects in accordance with law. …. If after applying mind to the rival contentions the trial court admits a document in evidence, Section 36 of the Stamp Act would come into play and such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The court, and of necessity it would be trial court before which the objection is taken about admissibility of document on the ground that it is not duly stamped, has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case and where a document has been inadvertently admitted without the court applying its mind as to the question of admissibility, the instrument could not be said to have been admitted in evidence with a view to attracting Section 36 [see Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655] . The endorsement made by the learned trial Judge that ‘Objected, allowed subject to objection’, clearly indicates that when the objection was raised it was not judicially determined and the document was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation Section 36 would not be attracted.”

Once Admitted, Always Stand Admitted – Theory Exploded

The aforestated long-stood concept is shattered in the recent decision in G. M.  Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R.  Hegde (Dipankar Datta, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.), AIR 2024 SC3339.

In G. M.  Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R.  Hegde (supra) it is held that sheer technicalities should not triumph over the legislative intent and the fiscal interests of the state. It is held as under:

  • “10. Despite the GPA having been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit without objection from the side of the appellant, we propose to hold for the reasons to follow that the Trial Court did have the authority to revisit and recall the process of admission and marking of the instrument, not in the sense of exercising a power of review under section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC but in exercise of its inherent power saved by section 151 thereof, and that the other remedy made available by the 1957 Act was not required to be pursued by the appellant to fasten the respondent with the liability to pay the deficit duty and penalty.”
  • “12. Read in isolation, a literal interpretation of section 35 of the 1957 Act seems to make the position in law clear that once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, then its admissibility cannot be contested at any stage of the proceedings on the ground of it not being duly stamped. A fortiori, it would follow that any objection pertaining to the instrument’s insufficient stamping must be raised prior to its admission.
  • 13. However, section 35 of the 1957 Act is not the only relevant section. It is preceded by sections 33 and 34 and all such sections are part of Chapter IV, tiled “Instruments Not Duly Stamped”. Certain obligations are cast by section 33 on persons/officials named therein. Should the presiding officer of the court find the instrument to be chargeable with duty but it is either not stamped or is insufficiently stamped, he is bound by section 33 to impound the same. Section 34 places a fetter on the court’s authority to admit an instrument which, though chargeable with duty, is not duly stamped. The statutory mandate is that no such instrument shall be admitted in evidence unless it is duly stamped.
  • 14. The presiding officer of a court being authorised in law to receive an instrument in evidence, is bound to give effect to the mandate of sections 33 and 34 and retains the authority to impound an instrument even in the absence of any objection from any party to the proceedings. Such an absence of any objection would not clothe the presiding officer of the court with power to mechanically admit a document that is tendered for admission in evidence. The same limitation would apply even in case of an objection regarding admissibility of an instrument, owing to its insufficient stamping, being raised before a court of law. Irrespective of whether objection is raised or not, the question of admissibility has to be decided according to law. The presiding officer of a court when confronted with the question of admitting an instrument chargeable with duty but which is either not stamped or is insufficiently stamped ought to judicially determine it. Application of judicial mind is a sine qua non having regard to the express language of sections 33 and 34 and interpretation of pari materia provisions in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [1899 Act, hereafter] by this Court. However, once a decision on the objection is rendered – be it right or wrong – section 35 would kick in to bar any question being raised as to admissibility of the instrument on the ground that it is not duly stamped at any stage of the proceedings and the party aggrieved by alleged improper admission has to work out its remedy as provided by section 58 of the 1957 Act.
  • “21. We may not turn a blind eye to the fact that the revenue would stand the risk of suffering huge loss if the courts fail to discharge the duty placed on it per provisions like section 33 of the 1957 Act. Such provision has been inserted in the statute with a definite purpose. The legislature has reposed responsibility on the courts and trusted them to ensure that requisite stamp duty, along with penalty, is duly paid if an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument is placed before it for admission in support of the case of a party. It is incumbent upon the courts to uphold the sanctity of the legal framework governing stamp duty, as the same are crucial for the authenticity and enforceability of instruments. Allowing an instrument with insufficient stamp duty to pass unchallenged, merely due to technicalities, would undermine the legislative intent and the fiscal interests of the state. The courts ought to ensure that compliance with all substantive and procedural requirements of a statute akin to the 1957 Act are adhered to by the interested parties. This duty of the court is paramount, and any deviation would set a detrimental precedent, eroding the integrity of the legal system. Thus, the court must vigilantly prevent any circumvention of these legal obligations, ensuring due compliance and strict adherence for upholding the rule of law.”

Conclusion

Though the decision taken by a Magistrate to mark a document ‘subject to proof/ objection’ is improper, it appears, in a proper case, marking a document (with the rider) “subject to proof/ objection” may be a legitimate action – if it is a “decision” (after applying mind) as ruled-down in In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies In Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). Nevertheless, a document can be marked (with the rider) “subject to proof/ objection” only if it is not possible to take a decision (in a summary manner) then and there; and the law does not favour the principles laid down in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (defer the whole matter for decision in future).

End Notes:

Sec. 33, 34 and 35, Stamp Act (State Act) read as under:

  • “33. Examination and impounding of instruments.- .(1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.
  • (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in the State of Karnataka when such instrument was executed or first executed: Provided that …
  • (3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, the Government may determine,- (a) what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and (b) who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices.
  • 34. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.– No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided …
  • 35. Admission of instrument where not to be questioned.-Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not, except as provided in section 58, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment