Summary
The Supreme Court remitted an objection that powers of attorney were insufficiently stamped under the Orissa amendment deeming instruments accompanied by transfer of possession conveyances. Registration alone did not establish proper stamping. Although stamp objections ordinarily require immediate decision, the alleged transfer of possession here required evidence. The trial court was to determine that fact and the objection with the main suit, rather than decide solely from the instruments’ recitals.
Issues
- Whether registration and the powers’ recitals resolved the claimed conveyance duty.
- Whether the stamp objection could await final decision where its factual basis required evidence.
Provisions considered
- Schedule IA, Article 23, Explanation, Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in Orissa in 2003Required examination of actual transfer of possession before, at or after the power’s execution for the deemed-conveyance claim. (¶¶ 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- The instruments had been exhibited subject to objection; the stamping issue had not been judicially determined. Mere registration did not answer whether possession transfer attracted conveyance duty under the State amendment. (¶¶ 5, 7, 11)
- Whether possession was transferred at execution or afterwards was a factual question requiring the parties’ evidence. The issue could not fairly be determined by reading the powers of attorney alone. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Stamp-deficiency objections ordinarily must be decided before proceeding further. In this case, because evidence was necessary to determine the instrument’s nature, admissibility could reasonably be deferred until final adjudication with the suit. The Court did not itself hold the instruments insufficiently stamped or order immediate impounding. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal disposed of; trial court and High Court orders set aside. Objection remitted for decision with the main suit after evidence on transfer of possession.