IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2488 OF 2009 Between: K.Mouneeswara Rao …Petitioner A n d V.Ramakrishna ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2488 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-11-2008 in O.S.No.129 of 2003, on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the trial Court while holding that the document dated 03.03.2000 produced by the defendant in the cross-examination of P.W.1 requires stamp duty and registration, however, permitted to be received in evidence on the ground that it is admissible and accordingly rejected the memo of objection filed by the plaintiff. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent, though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein ﬁled the suit for recovery of amount allegedly due under the suit pronote. The defendant ﬁled written statement contesting the suit. After necessary issues were settled, trial of the suit has commenced. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, the defendant sought to produce the disputed document dated 03.03.2000, which according to him is an agreement which contains a reference to the suit transaction and execution of the suit pronote. The plaintiﬀ ﬁled a memo objecting to the admissibility of the said document on the ground that it is hit by the provisions of the Stamp Act and also the Registration Act. After hearing both sides, the trial Court held that the document requires stamp duty and also registration but observed that it can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiﬀ ﬁled the present civil revision petition. 4. A perusal of the document would show that it refers to a transaction of sale and execution of registered sale deed dated 03.03.2000 and in connection with the said transaction borrowal of Rs.1 lakh under a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The contents of the document do not disclose that any rights in the immoveable property as such have been created, assigned, declared or extinguished under the said document. No rights in immoveable property ﬂow from the said document. Hence, the question of the document requiring registration does not arise. However, insofar as the objection under the Stamp Act is concerned, the document stipulates certain terms and conditions regarding the adjustment of the amount of Rs.1 lakh. As the document is in the nature of an agreement, the same requires stamp duty as such. In the absence of proper stamp duty and penalty, the document is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The document cannot be permitted in evidence for any purpose and even for a collateral purpose, as held by the A pex Court in AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN vs. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA[1], wherein it was held as follows: “The contention of that the document was admissible for collateral purpose is not correct. Parliament has, in Section 35, advisedly used the words “for any purpose whatsoever’. Thus, the purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be a relevant factor for not invoking Section 35. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, there is no reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes.” 5. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, the subject document cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose in the absence of proper stamp duty and penalty. It is, however, open to the respondent/defendant to seek impounding of the document and to pay stamp duty and penalty payable on the said document. 6. The impugned order, holding that the document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose, is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th November, 2011 Lrkm. [1] (2009) 2 SCC 532