Unstamped instruments cannot be used for any purpose, including collateral reliance on signatures, until stamp duty is cured.

An unstamped instrument chargeable with duty is not admissible in evidence for any purpose until the duty and penalty required by the Stamp Act are paid. The text states that the phrase "for any purpose" is comprehensive and extends to collateral use, including reliance on signatures contained in the document or comparison with a disputed signature. It also distinguishes the limited collateral-use principle applicable to non-registered documents under the Registration Act, explaining that it cannot be imported into the regime governing unstamped instruments.

---

---

Issues: Whether an unstamped instrument chargeable with duty can be admitted in evidence for any purpose, including to rely on signatures contained in it for a collateral purpose or for comparison with a disputed signature.

Analysis: Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act bars admission in evidence of any instrument chargeable with duty unless it is duly stamped, subject only to the statutory proviso permitting admission on payment of duty and penalty. The expression "for any purpose" was treated as comprehensive and was held to include collateral purposes as well. The Court also distinguished the effect of non-registration under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, noting that the limited collateral-use principle applicable to non-registered documents cannot be imported into the regime of unstamped instruments. Since the documents in question were chargeable with duty and the party sought to use even the signatures contained in them, no part of such instruments could be received in evidence until compliance with the stamping requirement.

Conclusion: An unstamped instrument chargeable with duty is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever, including reliance on signatures appearing in it for collateral comparison, unless the statutory requirement of stamp duty and penalty is satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the challenged documents could not be used in evidence without compliance with the stamp law, and the order admitting them subject to duty and penalty was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act creates an absolute bar against admitting an unstamped instrument chargeable with duty for any purpose, including collateral use of parts of the document, until the statutory duty and penalty are paid.

---