Stamp duty admissibility turns on the document's recitals; an agreement to sell with possession transfer is treated as a conveyance.

For stamp-duty purposes, admissibility is determined from the contents of the instrument itself, not from the opposing party's pleadings. An agreement to sell that records transfer of possession falls within the statutory fiction treating it as a conveyance under the amended Stamp Act, so it attracts conveyance duty. Because an instrument chargeable with duty but not duly stamped is inadmissible under Section 35 until duty and penalty are paid, the document could not be received in evidence. The trial court was therefore correct in refusing admission, and the High Court's contrary order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for deciding admissibility of an agreement to sell, the Court must rely on the recitals in the document or on the pleadings of the opposite party, and whether an agreement to sell reciting delivery of possession is a conveyance chargeable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Analysis: The decisive factor for admissibility is the contents of the instrument itself. The truth or otherwise of the recital regarding delivery of possession is a matter of evidence on merits, but it does not govern the preliminary question whether the document attracts stamp duty. Under Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, an instrument transferring immovable property inter vivos is a conveyance. Article 23 of Schedule 1-A, as substituted by the Madhya Pradesh amendment, creates a legal fiction that an agreement to sell immovable property, where possession is transferred before or after execution without executing a conveyance, shall be deemed to be a conveyance and duty shall be leviable accordingly. Once the document on its face records transfer of possession, it attracts the stamp duty applicable to a conveyance. Under Section 35, an instrument chargeable with duty and not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence until the requisite duty and penalty are paid.

Conclusion: The agreement to sell, on its own terms, was a conveyance deemed by the statutory explanation and was not duly stamped. It was therefore inadmissible in evidence, and the trial court had correctly refused to admit it.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the trial court's order was restored, resulting in acceptance of the appellant's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: For stamp-duty purposes, admissibility is determined from the recitals of the instrument itself, and an agreement to sell that transfers possession falls within the statutory fiction of a conveyance and cannot be admitted unless duly stamped.

---