DODDABASAPPA Vs. GURUBASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6-6-1998, passed by the Ist Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Bagalkot, on I. A. No. XI, filed in original suit number O. S. 74 of 1995. By I. A. XI, the plaintiff sought the direction against defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 10 to pay the stamp duty and penalty, as provided under S. 34 of Indian Stamp Act, before its admission and recording of evidence.

(2.) THE objection was filed by the defendants contending that defendants are not enforcing the award, and they are using it as defence. Hence, there is no question of payment of stamp duty, and that the document at least can be admitted for collateral purpose of severance of status of the joint family. The trial Court considered the contentions, and held that the document, marked as Ex. D20, shows it requires the payment of stamp duty. The document is styled, as decision of the arbitrator, and certain shares had been allotted to the parties and the well, pump-set have been kept in common. The learned Civil Judge, opined that the document required payment of stamp duty, as an instrument of partition as provided under Art. 39 of the Stamp Act. The learned Civil Judge rejected the contentions of defendants, whether they are enforcing the award or relaying it for another purpose, that has got no relevance. That so far as payment of stamp duty is concerned, it opined that it cannot be admitted for any purpose without payment of stamp duty and penalty.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved from that order, the defendants have come up in revision under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. I have heard Sri S. B. Hebballi, learned counsel for the revision-petition and Sri Krishna Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents.