The Supreme Court of India in T. Mohan v. Kannammal affirmed that a duplicate copy of an agreement to sell is admissible as secondary evidence when the vendor deliberately withholds the original, and that pre-1995 agreements under the Karnataka Stamp Act required only five rupees stamp duty.
Facts and Procedural History of the Specific Performance Suit
The plaintiff was a tenant occupying a portion of the suit property under the first defendant (vendor). On 20 October 1980, the parties executed an agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 29,500, with an advance payment of Rs. 10,000. The agreement stipulated that the balance consideration would be paid within 18 months, upon which the vendor would execute a registered sale deed. Instead of honoring the agreement, the vendor executed a registered sale deed in favor of the second defendant (subsequent purchaser) on 18 May 1981.
The plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 10453 of 1982 in the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore, praying for a declaration that the subsequent sale deed was void, permanent injunction against alienation or interference with possession, and a decree of specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit on grounds that the original agreement was not produced, the duplicate copy was insufficiently stamped, and readiness and willingness were not established.
High Court Reversal and Secondary Evidence Findings
On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka reversed the trial court decree in Regular First Appeal No. 129 of 1993, holding that:
- Foundation for Secondary Evidence: The original agreement was retained by the vendor, who deliberately failed to produce it in court. Under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the duplicate copy was fully admissible as secondary evidence.
- Proof of Execution: Attesting witnesses proved execution on 20 October 1980, and the vendor's son admitted during examination that the signatures on the document were his father's handwriting.
- Readiness and Willingness: The plaintiff consistently averred and demonstrated readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration, depositing the balance sum in the trial court.
Supreme Court Analysis on Stamp Duty and Specific Performance
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clarified the stamp duty legal position and confirmed the validity of the decree:
| Legal Issue | Trial / High Court Observation | Supreme Court Clarification |
|---|---|---|
| Stamp Duty Adequacy | High Court held Rs. 5 stamp paper was insufficient but admissible | Pre-1995 Karnataka Stamp Act Schedule Article 5 prescribed exactly Rs. 5 stamp duty; document was fully stamped |
| Secondary Evidence (Section 65) | Trial court rejected copy; High Court admitted duplicate copy | Withholding of original by vendor created proper foundation to admit copy as secondary evidence |
| Readiness and Willingness | Disputed by subsequent purchaser | Duly established through prompt legal notice, witness depositions, and deposit of consideration |
The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court mistakenly referred to the Karnataka Stamp (Amendment) Act 78 of 1995, which enhanced stamp duty to Rs. 100 on sale agreements with part performance. Under the applicable law in 1980 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1979), five rupees was the exact statutory stamp duty prescribed for agreements. The Supreme Court dismissed both civil appeals and confirmed the decree for specific performance.