Sec 33 of Stamp Act casts a duty on every authority before whom an instrument is produced on which adequate stamp duty has not been paid, to impound the same. Likewise, Sec 35 mandates that no such instrument will be produced as evidence where adequate duty is not paid.
I find that act completely silent on what happens if authority does not impound the instruments u/s 33. Does it means there is no consequence for such failure? Does it mean that public cannot force an authority to comply with sec 33? Pls advise.
LIkewise, sec 35 says that no such instrument will be admitted in evidence "or acted upon" unless such duty is paid. I am defending a suit for specific relief where plaintiff has alleged an "oral contract" for sale of land, later converted into MOU on plain paper. Court has refused our application uder 7-11 (oral contract cannot be accepted u/s 92 of evidence act, and MOU cannot be accepted u/s 35 of stamp act, and 49 of Registration Act) holding that such matters will be seen at the time of evidence. High court has rejected our revision on the same ground that such issues will be seen at the time of evidence.
It means a person can easily file a suit based on inadmissible evidences, demand injunction (which will depend on thinking of the judge concerned) and then, face the issues of invalid evidence. It means court is "acting" on such inadvmissible evidence because court goes by the plaint and attached copies and makes up mind that there is a prima facie case subject to evidence, when it could have easily seen from the plaint itself that oral contract is inadmissible u/s 92 of evidence act, and MOU which is not stamped (visible on the copies attached) not admissible either, means, there is no prima facie case.
Question is, can be compel court to look at sec 33 or 35 of stamp act before deciding our injuction and before coming to Evidence Stage itself?
Kindly advise.
