{"id":217136,"date":"2006-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006"},"modified":"2016-01-25T09:58:37","modified_gmt":"2016-01-25T04:28:37","slug":"chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 560 of 2003()\n\n\n1. CHAMIYAPPA MANNADIAR, S\/O.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. CHANDRIKA, W\/O.CHAMIYAPPA MANNADIAR,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DANAVAN, S\/O.RAJAPPAN, AGED 46,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ARUN SAGAR, S\/O.DANAVAN, AGED 17(MINOR)\n\n3. AKITHA ALIAS AMRITHA, D\/O.DANAVAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :11\/12\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n                            ------------------------------------------\n\n                                C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)\n\n                                              and\n\n                                O.P.NO.6574 OF 2003 (G)\n\n                               -----------------------------------------\n\n                      Dated this the  11 th  day of December, 2006.\n\n\n                                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                   Can   a   copy   of   an   insufficiently   stamped   instrument   be<\/p>\n
impounded under Section 33 of Kerala Stamp Act or the deficit stamp<\/p>\n
duty and penalty be realised?   Whether a provision in the instrument<\/p>\n
creating an oblgation to pay money, but not a fixed sum, makes the<\/p>\n
instrument a bond as defined under section 2(a) (i) of Kerala Stamp<\/p>\n
Act?  These are the interesting questions to be settled in this case.<\/p>\n
         2.        Petitioners are husband and wife.  They are the plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
O.S.156\/1996  on the file of Sub Court, Palakkad.   Respondent in the<\/p>\n
C.R.P are the defendants in that suit.  First respondent in the C.R.P is<\/p>\n
the plaintiff in O.S.284\/95  and O.S.543\/1998  on the file of the same<\/p>\n
court.  Petitioner filed O.S.156\/1996 for realisation of Rs.5.2 Lakhs due<\/p>\n
under   an   agreement   for   sale   dated   3.4.1995.     First   respondent   filed<\/p>\n
O.S.284\/1985 for realisation of the amount paid under the agreement<\/p>\n
contending that it was  not actually an agreement  for  sale  but a loan<\/p>\n
transaction.    O.S.43\/1998   was   filed   for   return   of   the   amount   on  the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
basis of an agreement dated 5.4.1995.  In O.S.156\/1996, when Ext.P1<\/p>\n
agreement dated 3.4.1995 was sought to be marked as an exhibit, it<\/p>\n
was contended by   respondents that the instrument was not property<\/p>\n
stamped and it is not an agreement  but a bond and sufficient stamp<\/p>\n
duty  was   not   paid  and   being   an  insufficiently   stamped   instrument,   it<\/p>\n
cannot be admitted in evidence.   Learned Sub Judge, as per impugned<\/p>\n
order in C.R.P.560\/03 dated 14.2.03 held that Ext.P1 is an agreement<\/p>\n
as   well   as   a   bond   and   it   is   chargeable   with   duty   as   provided   under<\/p>\n
Section   5   of   Kerala   Stamp   Act.     The   said   order   is   challenged   in<\/p>\n
C.R.P.560\/03.     In   O.S.284\/95,   when   the   very   same   document   was<\/p>\n
sought   to   be   marked,   under   Ext.P2   order   passed   on   the   same   day,<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge   held that  the document is both an agreement and<\/p>\n
bond and is chargeable with duty as provided under section 5 of Kerala<\/p>\n
Stamp   Act.     Ext.P2   order   is   challenged   in   O.P.6574\/03,   filed   under<\/p>\n
Article 227 of   Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.      Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents<\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.      Learned   counsel   appearing   for   petitioners   relied   on   the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
decision   of   Apex   court   in   Jupudi   Kesava   Rao   v.   Pulavarthy   Venketa<\/p>\n
Subbarao   (AIR<\/a>   1971   SC   1070)   and   argued   that   Ext.P1   is   not   an<\/p>\n
instrument  as  defined under Section 2(j) of Kerala Stamp Act and it is<\/p>\n
only a copy of the agreement which was retained by the petitioners as<\/p>\n
is clear from the document  itself and the original was handed over to<\/p>\n
respondents and they did not produce the same and therefore  copy of<\/p>\n
an   instrument   cannot   be   impounded   and     for   that   sole   reason   the<\/p>\n
orders   are   to   be   quashed.     Learned   counsel   also   argued   that   the<\/p>\n
instrument   does   not   provide   for   payment   of     money   and   as   is   clear<\/p>\n
from  the   contentions   of   the   parties,   originally   an   agreement   for   sale<\/p>\n
was executed on 31.3.95 where only first plaintiff was a party and he<\/p>\n
agreed  to   sell  8.4  acres   of  land for   a  consideration  of   1.5  Lakhs  per<\/p>\n
acre and as  a part of the property covered by the agreement belongs<\/p>\n
to   his   wife,   second   plaintiff,     Ext.P1   agreement   was   executed   on<\/p>\n
3.4.1995 providing for execution of a sale deed in respect of  8.4 acres<\/p>\n
after receiving   consideration for 5 acres of land due to the pendency<\/p>\n
of   ceiling   case   before   this   court.     The   instrument   provides   that   if<\/p>\n
plaintiff   succeed in that ceiling case and their   right is upheld by this<\/p>\n
court, respondents have to pay the balance sale consideration.  It was<\/p>\n
argued   that   the   considerations     so   payable   is   not   a   fixed   sum,   as   it<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
depends on the result of the ceiling case and therefore Ext.P1 is not a<\/p>\n
bond as defined under Section 2(a)(i) of Kerala Stamp Act.  Relying on<\/p>\n
the   decision   of   the   Lahore   High   Court   in  Tej   Ram   and   another   v.<\/p>\n
Maqbal   Shah   and   others   (AIR   1928   Lahore   370)    and   Apex   Court   in<\/p>\n
The Member, Board of Revenue v.Arthur Paul Benthall (AIR 1956  SC<\/p>\n
35)  it   was   argued   that   section   5   of   the   Kerala   Stamp   Act   does   not<\/p>\n
apply to the instrument as it is a single transactions and  the order of<\/p>\n
the learned Sub Judge treating the instrument attracting Section 5 of<\/p>\n
Kerala Stamp act is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.      Learned counsel appearing for  respondents relying on the<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. McDowell and Co. Ltd<\/a><\/p>\n
(1994   (1)   KLT   802)  argued   that   the   instrument   by   itself   creates   an<\/p>\n
obligation to pay   money being the value for the remaining extent of<\/p>\n
the   property   covered   by   the   instrument,   less   the   value   paid   for   five<\/p>\n
acres at the rate shown in the instrument making it clear that in case<\/p>\n
petitioners   did   not   succeed   in   the   ceiling   case   pending   before   this<\/p>\n
court, that provision would be void and therefore it is a bond as rightly<\/p>\n
found   by   the   trial   court.     Relying   on   the   decision   of   this   court   in<\/p>\n
Varghese V. State of Kerala<\/a> (1989 (1) KLT 24), learned counsel further<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
argued that when an instrument is sought to be marked as evidence<\/p>\n
and   court   is   satisfied   that   the   instrument   is   insufficiently   stamped,<\/p>\n
court   is   bound   to   act   as   provided   under   section   33   and   as   the<\/p>\n
instrument is a bond,   trial court rightly found that   the instrument is<\/p>\n
not sufficiently stamped and the order cannot be challenged.   Relying<\/p>\n
on the decision of this court in  Asokan v. Deputy Collector<\/a> (1995 (2)<\/p>\n
KLT\n<\/p>\n
        292)  i
\n                 t was  argued that courts power  to impound an instrument<\/p>\n
cannot be challenged  on the ground that parties to the instrument are<\/p>\n
not before the court or that the document     was not produced by the<\/p>\n
petitioners or that  the original was not produced before the court.<\/p>\n
         6.        A bond has been defined in sub clause 1 of section (a) of<\/p>\n
(2) of Kerala Stamp Act, as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money<\/p>\n
to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified<\/p>\n
act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be”.<\/p>\n
         7.        Apex   court   in   state   of   Kerala   v.   McDowell   and   Co.   Ltd<\/a><\/p>\n
(supra),     construing   the   said   provision   held   that   definition   must   be<\/p>\n
read as it stands and nothing may be read in or implied and the word<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
“whereby” in the section must be read as by which Their Lordship held,<\/p>\n
                         ”   in   our   view,   the   definition   of<\/p>\n
                bond   in   sub-clause   (1)   of   clause   (a)   of<\/p>\n
                Section   2   of   the   Kerala   Stamp   Act   is<\/p>\n
                clear and unambiguous.  It must be read<\/p>\n
                as   it   stand,   nothing   may   be   read   in   or<\/p>\n
                implied.     The   word   ‘whereby’   must   be<\/p>\n
                read as meaning what it ordinarily does,<\/p>\n
                namely,   ‘by   which’.     An   instrument,<\/p>\n
                therefore,   by   which   a   person   puts<\/p>\n
                himself under an obligation to pay a sum<\/p>\n
                of   money   to   another   on   condition   that<\/p>\n
                the   obligation   shall   be   void   if   some<\/p>\n
                specific act is, or is not, performed is a<\/p>\n
                bond.  The only question to pose is, has<\/p>\n
                the   executant   of   the   instrument   put<\/p>\n
                himself   under   an   obligation,   or   bound<\/p>\n
                himself,   to   pay   a   sum   of   money   to<\/p>\n
                another, the obligation to be void under<\/p>\n
                specified   circumstances?                 If   the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
                 executant   can   be   sued   for   that   sum   of<\/p>\n
                 money   only   upon   the   strength   of   the<\/p>\n
                 instrument, the instrument is a bond”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.      To resolve the dispute Ext.P1 the agreement is to be read<\/p>\n
as   a   whole.     It   is   to   be   seen   whether   the   instrument   creates   an<\/p>\n
obligation to pay a sum of money and also provides that the obligation<\/p>\n
will be void if some specified act is or is not performed.<\/p>\n
       9.      Ext.P1   is   a   copy   of   an   agreement   executed   between<\/p>\n
petitioners and the first respondent.  Under Ext.P1, petitioners agreed<\/p>\n
to   sell   8.4   acres   of   land   belonging   to   them   for   a   consideration   of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,90,000\/-   per   acre.     It   specially   provides   that   out   of   the   sale<\/p>\n
consideration, first respondent need pay only the consideration for five<\/p>\n
acres   of   land,   as   the   remaining   extent   of   property   is   involved   in   a<\/p>\n
ceiling   case   then   pending   before   this   court.     Evidently,   if   the   ceiling<\/p>\n
case   is   decided   against     petitioners,   first   respondent   inspite   of   the<\/p>\n
assignment   deed   will   not   get   any   right   over   that   extent   of   the<\/p>\n
property.    Parties,  therefore   on their  wisdom,    chose  to  provide  that<\/p>\n
the liability of first respondent to pay the consideration for that extent<\/p>\n
of  the  property, which  depends  on  the  fate  of  the   ceiling  case,  arise<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
only   after   the   final   decision     in   the   ceiling   case.     It   was   therefore<\/p>\n
provided that part of the consideration, depending on the decision in<\/p>\n
ceiling   case,   need   not   be   paid   at   the   time   of   execution   of   the   sale<\/p>\n
deed,   though   the   deed   is   for   the   entire   extent.     Payment   for   that<\/p>\n
extent of the property is to be made only after  petitioners succeed in<\/p>\n
the   ceiling   case.     The   instrument     creates   an   obligation   to   pay   the<\/p>\n
consideration for  the balance extent depending on the decision in the<\/p>\n
ceiling case.  It is clear that the said  obligation will crystalise only on<\/p>\n
the final decision of the ceiling case.  If this court upholds the case of<\/p>\n
the   excutants   of   the   instrument   in   respect   of   the   whole   claim,   the<\/p>\n
consideration   payable   will   be   the   value   for     3.4   acres   at   the   rate   of<\/p>\n
rs.1,90,000\/-   per   acre.     If   part   of   the   claim   alone   is   upheld,   the<\/p>\n
quantum of consideration will proportionately be reduced.  If so, can it<\/p>\n
be   said   that   the   instrument   creates   an   obligation   to   pay,   an<\/p>\n
ascertained   sum   of   money   on   which   stamp   duty   is   to   be   paid.<\/p>\n
Depending on the decision of the court in the ceiling case, the liability<\/p>\n
or obligation may be nil or a maximum of  consideration for 3.4 acres<\/p>\n
of at the rate of Rs.1,90,000\/- per acre.  If so the instrument thereby<\/p>\n
does   not   create   an   obligation   to   pay   a   particular   sum   of   money.<\/p>\n
True,   the   instrument   satisfies   part   of   the   definition   of   a   bond   as<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
defined in Section 2(a) (i) of Kerala Stamp act, as the said obligation is<\/p>\n
treated   void, if the ceiling case   end against the petitioners.   But the<\/p>\n
question   is   whether   for   that   reason,     the   said   obligation   to   pay   the<\/p>\n
balance   consideration,   is   a   liability   to   pay   the   “money”   as   defined<\/p>\n
under section 2(a) (i) of Kerala Stamp Act.  The definition of section 2<\/p>\n
(a)(i) provides that by the instrument the person must oblige himself<\/p>\n
to pay money.     That money has to be a fixed sum and cannot be a<\/p>\n
sum which has to be ascertained at a later point of time depending on<\/p>\n
other   contingencies   as   in   this   case.     Though   Ext.P1   provides   for<\/p>\n
payment   of   balance   sale   consideration,   the   quantum   of   balance<\/p>\n
consideration     definitely   depends   upon   the   balance   extend   of   the<\/p>\n
property,   excluding   5   acres   conveyed.       Under   the   instrument,<\/p>\n
balance extent   depends upon the decision of this court in the ceiling<\/p>\n
case.       As   rightly   argued   by   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner,   if   this   court   upholds     only   part   of   the   claim   made   by<\/p>\n
petitioners,   it   would   definitely   reduce     the   liability   to   pay   money,<\/p>\n
provided in the instrument.  If so, it cannot be said that the instrument<\/p>\n
provides   for   payment   of   money   on   which     stamp   duty   could   be<\/p>\n
charged.     Therefore   on   that   ground   itself,   it   is   to   be   held   that   the<\/p>\n
document  is not a bond.\n<\/p>\n
\nC.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
       10.    Moreover   as   rightly   pointed   out   by   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing   for   petitioner,   trial   court   is   competent   to   impound   an<\/p>\n
instrument   as   defined   under   section   2(j)   of   Kerala   Stamp   Act,<\/p>\n
corresponding to section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp  Act.<\/p>\n
       Section   2(j)   of   Kerala   Stampt   Act   defines   an   “instrument”<\/p>\n
includes every document by which any right or liability is or purports to<\/p>\n
be created,transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded but<\/p>\n
does   not   include   a   bill   of   exchange,   promissory   note,   bill   of   lading,<\/p>\n
letter   of   credit,   policy   of   insurance,   transfer   of   share   of   debenture,<\/p>\n
proxy and receipt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       11.    Section   34   mandates   that   no   instrument   chargeable   with<\/p>\n
duty   shall   be   admitted   in   evidence   for   any   purpose   by   any   person<\/p>\n
authorised to receive    evidence or shall be acted upon, registered  or<\/p>\n
authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such<\/p>\n
an  instrument   is  duly  stamped  except  as   provided  under  the   proviso<\/p>\n
enabling the party to get it admitted on payment of deficit stamp duty<\/p>\n
payable and the penalty as provided thereunder.   Section 33 provides<\/p>\n
that   every   person   having   by   law   or   consent   of   parties   authority   to<\/p>\n
receive evidence and every person in charge of public office except a<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
police   officer,   when   an   instrument   is   produced   or   comes   in   the<\/p>\n
performance   of   his   functions,   appears   to   him   that   the   instrument   is<\/p>\n
insufficiently stamped, shall   impound the same.   Section 37 provides<\/p>\n
how   an   instrument   which   was   impounded   under   section   33   is   to   be<\/p>\n
dealt with.   Under sub section 1 of section 37, when an insufficiently<\/p>\n
stamped instrument is admitted, after  payment of deficit stamp  duty<\/p>\n
payable   and   the   penalty   as   provided,   the   person   so   impounding   the<\/p>\n
instrument  shall  send   to  the   Collector   an  authenticated   copy  of   such<\/p>\n
instrument, together with a certificate stating the amount of duty and<\/p>\n
penalty levied and shall also send such amount to the Collector.  If the<\/p>\n
deficit duty and penalty has not been paid, sub section mandates that,<\/p>\n
the   person   impounding   the   instrument   shall   send   it   to   the   collector.<\/p>\n
Section 39 deals with the powers to stamp the instrument impounded.<\/p>\n
The   provisions   therefore   make   it   clear   that   the   instrument   to   be<\/p>\n
examined under section 33 and impounded, is the original instrument<\/p>\n
itself and not a  copy of the instrument. Though section 33 enables the<\/p>\n
court to receive the deficit duty payable with  the penalty payable, if it<\/p>\n
is not paid, sub section 2 of section 37 mandates that the instrument is<\/p>\n
to be send to the Collector who is bound to stamp the instrument as<\/p>\n
provided   under   Section   39.     That   cannot   be   on   the     copy   of   an<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
instrument   itself   but   the   instrument   which   could   only   be   the   original<\/p>\n
instrument.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          12.    The judicial committee of privy council   in  Raja of Bobbihi<\/p>\n
V.   Inuganti   Chiria   Sitaramaswami   Guru  (1900   ILR   23   Mad.   49)<\/p>\n
considered   the   question   whether   a   copy   of   the   instrument   can   be<\/p>\n
tendered   as   secondary   evidence,   when   the   original   instrument   was<\/p>\n
shown   to   have   been   insufficiently   stamped.     The   judicial   committee<\/p>\n
held,<\/p>\n
                            ”   These   clauses   throughout   deal<\/p>\n
                    with   and   exclusively   refer   to   the<\/p>\n
                    admission   as   evidence   of   original<\/p>\n
                    documents,   which   at   the   time   of   their<\/p>\n
                    execution,   were   not   stamped   at   all   or<\/p>\n
                    were   insufficiently   stamped.   It   is   only<\/p>\n
                    upon   production   of   the   original   writ,<\/p>\n
                    that the Collector has given him, or the<\/p>\n
                    duty   imposed   upon   him,   of   assessing<\/p>\n
                    and charging the penalty, a duty which<\/p>\n
                    he   must   in   that   case,   perform   by<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
                   writing   an   indorsement,   upon   the   writ<\/p>\n
                   submitted   to   him,   which   then,   and  not<\/p>\n
                   till then becomes probative in law”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       13.     Apex court in State of Bihar V. Karam Chand (AIR<\/a> 1962 SC<\/p>\n
110)   followed   that   decision   and   laid   down   that   the   position   is   well<\/p>\n
settled that a copy of the instrument cannot be validated by payment<\/p>\n
of stamp duty or deficit stamp duty and penalty.<\/p>\n
       14.     Section 55 of Indian Stamp Act correspond to Section 34 of<\/p>\n
Kerala  Stamp   Act.    Apex   court  in  Jupudi  V.  Pulavarthi   (AIR<\/a>  1971   SC<\/p>\n
1070)   construing     section   35   of   Indian   Stamp   Act   held   that   the   bar<\/p>\n
imposed under Section 35  is on the reception of any but the original<\/p>\n
instrument   and   forbade   the   reception   of   secondary   evidence   and<\/p>\n
Section   36   (corresponding   to   Section   35   of   Kerala   Stamp   Act)   only<\/p>\n
lifted   that   bar   in   the   case   of   an   original   unstamped   or   insufficiently<\/p>\n
stamped document to which no exception as to admissibility was taken<\/p>\n
at   the   first   stage   and   did  not   create   any   exception   to   a   copy   of   the<\/p>\n
document.  Their lordship held,<\/p>\n
                             ”   The   first   limp   of   Section   35<\/p>\n
                     clearly   shut   out   from   evidence   any<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
                   instrument   chargeable   with   duty<\/p>\n
                   unless   it   is   duly   stamped.     The<\/p>\n
                   second   limb   of   it   which   relates   to<\/p>\n
                   acting   upon   the   instrument   will<\/p>\n
                   obviously   shut   out   any   secondary<\/p>\n
                   evidence   of   such   instrument,   for<\/p>\n
                   allowing   such   evidence   to   be   let   in<\/p>\n
                   when   the   original   admittedly<\/p>\n
                   chargeable   with   duty   was   not<\/p>\n
                   stamped   or   insufficiently   stamped,<\/p>\n
                   would   be   tantamount   to   the<\/p>\n
                   document   being   acted   upon   by   the<\/p>\n
                   person having by law or authority to<\/p>\n
                   receive evidence.  Proviso (a) is only<\/p>\n
                   applicable         when         the         original<\/p>\n
                   instrument   is   actually   before   the<\/p>\n
                   Court   of   law   and   the   deficiency   in<\/p>\n
                   stamp   with   penalty   is   paid   by   the<\/p>\n
                   party   seeking   to   rely   upon   the<\/p>\n
                   document.             Clearly   secondary<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
                   evidence   either   by   way   of   oral<\/p>\n
                   evidence   of   the   contents   of   the<\/p>\n
                   unstamped document or the copy of<\/p>\n
                   it covered by section 63 of the Indian<\/p>\n
                   Evidence   Act   would   not   fulfill   the<\/p>\n
                   requirements   of   the   proviso   which<\/p>\n
                   enjoins upon the authority to receive<\/p>\n
                   nothing   in   evidence   except   the<\/p>\n
                   instrument   itself.     Section   35   is   not<\/p>\n
                   concerned   with   any   copy   of   an<\/p>\n
                   instrument   and   a   party   can   only   be<\/p>\n
                   allowed   to   rely   on   a   instrument<\/p>\n
                   which   is   an   instrument   for   the<\/p>\n
                   purpose of Section 35.   ‘Instrument’<\/p>\n
                   is   defined   in   Section   2   (14)   as<\/p>\n
                   including   every   document   by   which<\/p>\n
                   any right or liability is, or purports to<\/p>\n
                   be   created,   transferred,   limited,<\/p>\n
                   extended,   extinguished   or   recorded.\n<\/p>\n
\n                   There   is   no   scope   for   inclusion   of   a<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                         16<\/span><\/p>\n
                   copy of a document as an instrument<\/p>\n
                   for the purpose of the Stamp Act.\n<\/p>\n
              If Section 35 only deals with original instruments and not<\/p>\n
copies   Section   36   cannot   be   so   interpreted   as   to   allow   secondary<\/p>\n
evidence   of   an   instrument   to   have   its   benefit.   The   words   “an<\/p>\n
instrument”   in   Section   36   must   have   the   same   meaning   as   that   in<\/p>\n
Section 35.   The legislature only relented from the strict provisions of<\/p>\n
Section   35   in   cases   where   the   original   instrument   was   admitted   in<\/p>\n
evidence without objection at the initial stage of a suit or proceedings.<\/p>\n
In other words, although the objection is based on the insufficiency of<\/p>\n
the stamp affixed to the document, a party who has a right to object<\/p>\n
to the reception of it must do so when the document is first tendered.<\/p>\n
Once   the   time   for   raising   objection   to   the   admission   of   the<\/p>\n
documentary   evidence   is   passed,   no   objection   based   on   the   same<\/p>\n
ground can be raised at a later stage.  But this in no way extends the<\/p>\n
applicability of Section 36 to secondary evidence adduced or sought to<\/p>\n
be adduced in proof of the contents of a document which is unstamped<\/p>\n
or insufficiently stamped.”\n<\/p>\n
\nC.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                             17<\/span><\/p>\n
       15.    In   view   of   the   settled   legal   position,   when   a   copy   of   the<\/p>\n
instrument   as   in   this   case   was   produced,     court   has   no   power   to<\/p>\n
impound the copy of the instrument as provided under section 33.  For<\/p>\n
that reason alone, the order of the learned Munsiff is bad.  The learned<\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   respondent     submitted   that   if   such   a   view   is<\/p>\n
taken   it   would   allow   parties   to   shield   the   original   insufficiently   or<\/p>\n
unstamped instrument from production in the case and only copy will<\/p>\n
be produced.  I find no reason for such an apprehension.  If it is shown<\/p>\n
that   the   original   instrument   (document)   was   either   not   stamped   or<\/p>\n
insufficiently stamped, as declared by the Apex court in Jupudi’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) the copy of that instrument cannot be admitted as  secondary<\/p>\n
evidence.     Hence   no   party   can   escape   from   the   bar   provided   under<\/p>\n
Section 33, by producing copy of the instrument which is not stamped<\/p>\n
or not sufficiently stamped.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       16.    From   the   provisions   of   the   Act   and   the   decisions   of   the<\/p>\n
Apex Court it is clear that copy of a instrument  cannot be impounded<\/p>\n
under Section 33 of Kerala Stamp Act and only the  original instrument<\/p>\n
can   be   impounded.     By   paying   the   deficit   duty   payable,   with   the<\/p>\n
penalty   payable   ,only   the   original   instrument   could   be   admitted   in<\/p>\n
C.R.P.NO.560 OF 2003 (G)<\/p>\n
                                                      18<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence.     A   copy   of   an   unstamped   or   insufficiently   stamped<\/p>\n
instrument   cannot   either   be   impounded   or   admitted   as   additional<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       In view of the earlier findings, the orders of Munsiff that Ext.P1<\/p>\n
document is a bond is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,<\/p>\n
                                                                       JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
bkn<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 560 of 2003() 1. CHAMIYAPPA MANNADIAR, S\/O. … Petitioner 2. CHANDRIKA, W\/O.CHAMIYAPPA MANNADIAR, Vs 1. DANAVAN, S\/O.RAJAPPAN, AGED 46, … Respondent 2. ARUN SAGAR, S\/O.DANAVAN, AGED 17(MINOR) 3. AKITHA ALIAS AMRITHA, D\/O.DANAVAN, For Petitioner […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-25T04:28:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T04:28:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3343,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006\",\"name\":\"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T04:28:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-25T04:28:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T04:28:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006"},"wordCount":3343,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006","name":"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T04:28:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chamiyappa-mannadiar-vs-danavan-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chamiyappa Mannadiar vs Danavan on 11 December, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217136","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217136"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217136\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}