RIYAZ KHAN Vs. MODI MOHAMMED ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, which has been filed by the plaintiffs, the crucial question to be decided is that if a document tendered in evidence is marked as "subject to objection" on the ground of deficient stamp duty, whether the Court can subsequently directed for deficit stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (in short the 'act' ).

(2.) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit in O. S. No. 6674/98 on the file of the 5th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. This suit has been filed for a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Lawfulness of his possession over the property was sought to be justified by the plaintiffs on the basis of a contract for sale dated 28-2-1997. The plaintiff/petitioner tendered this document as an evidence but its admissibility was objected by the defendants on the ground that it was not duly stamped. The Court marked the document as Ex. P. 2 subject to objections by the defendants. Subsequently, the Court took up the issue regarding admissibility of the document and passed the impugned order dated 28-3-2000 holding that the document was not duly stamped and therefore the plaintiff should pay deficit stamp duty with penalty.

(3.) SRI G. S. Vishweswar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has assailed the validity of the impugned order by raising the plea that once the document is marked as exhibit, it should be deemed to have been admitted and as such in view of Section 35 of the Act, neither its admissibility can be questioned at a subsequent stage nor the Court can direct for paying the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655.