THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2409 OF 2009. DATED:21-08-2009. Between: 1. A. Satyanarayana and another …Petitioners-Defendants And 1.V.Raja Narasaiah and another …Respondents-Plaintiffs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2409 OF 2009. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 11-02-2009, in I.A.No.490 of 2008 in O.S.No.75 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial. 2. The above application was filed under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to permit the petitioners-plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence by marking the Xerox copy of the simple sale deed on the ground that the grand father of the petitioners- plaintiffs purchased the land on 04-02-1934 from Chakunta Madhava Rao for Rs.15/-, that the said simple sale deed was lost and could not be traced even after best efforts. 3. The trial Court after hearing both sides held that proof or relevancy of the document has to be decided at the time of final hearing and permitting the petitioners therein (plaintiffs) to lead secondary evidence would not amount to proving the document and accordingly, allowed the application. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein (defendants) contended that the Xerox copy of the simple sale deed is conveyance within the meaning of Article 15 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act, whereunder the amount or value of the consideration for the conveyance does not exceed Rs.50/-, the stamp duty has to be paid at one rupee eight annas. Admittedly, the document is for Rs.15/-. Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act defines ‘instrument’ as ‘instrument’ includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purpose to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. In this case, as seen from the Xerox copy, the right to the property has been transferred. Therefore, it is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act. Now, the question is whether a duly unstamped Xerox copy can be received as evidence. On this aspect, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants relied on a decision reported in SUNKARA SURYAPRAKASH RAO V MADIREDDI NARASIMHA RAO [1], wherein it was held thus: “In the light of the view expressed by this court in the decisions referred to supra, inasmuch as, the Xerox copy of the document in question would not fall within the meaning of instrument, the said document cannot be received as evidence even on condition of the payment of stamp duty and penalty for the reason that there is no question of such document being sent either for the purpose of impounding or collecting the stamp duty and penalty on such document, since such document would not fall within the definition of instrument.” Similar view was taken by this Court in a decision reported in MANDA LAXMI RAJAM V KANAPARTHI LAXMI BAI AND OTHERS [2] and also in another decision reported in OBELISETTY RAMANADHAM V OBELISETTY BHASKAR RAO AND OTHERS [3]. Even under the old or new Act, a document now sought to be received as evidence is a conveyance. Unless such conveyance is duly stamped, it cannot be received as evidence in view of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, which reads thus: “Instrument 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 officers, unless such instrument is duly stamped.” A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the instrument chargeable with duty shall not be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person. Hence, the trial Court committed an illegality in allowing the application without adverting to the law laid down by this Court and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 11-02-2009, in I.A.No.490 of 2008 in O.S.No.75 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:21-08-2009 Hsd [1] 2009 (3) ALD 388 [2] AIR 2008 AP 255 [3] 2008 (2) ALD 278