Vijay Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered three issues: (i) whether the bar under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applied to the agreement(s) to sell dated 04.02.1988; (ii) whether a copy of a document could be adduced as secondary evidence when the original instrument was not in the possession of the party; and (iii) whether the decision in Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subha Rao was binding in the facts of the case.
The dispute arose from an agreement to sell executed on 04.02.1988. The plaintiff alleged that possession of the property had been delivered pursuant to the agreement. After the defendant denied the existence of the agreement, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and sought permission to produce a copy of the agreement as secondary evidence. The 4th Additional District Judge initially allowed the application on 17.07.2001. On review, however, the Court reversed that order on 16.12.2003, holding that secondary evidence of the agreement to sell could not be permitted because the document was not executed on proper stamp paper and was barred by Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The review court relied upon Jupudi Kesava Rao. The plaintiff then challenged both the review order and the constitutional validity of Section 35 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By order dated 30.11.2009 in W.P. No. 741/2004, the High Court upheld the validity of Section 35 and affirmed the review order, leading to the present appeal.
