ARCHANA ASSOCIATES Vs. AGAMATHRAYA MAHA MANDALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the defendant in the suit for ejectment. The suit having been decreed and the appellant having been directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) It is contended that there was a lease agreement for a period of 30 years in respect of the suit property. However, the said agreement not having been produced by the plaintiff, was produced by the defendant by way of confronting the plaintiff in cross-examination and same was even marked as an Exhibit. That document was also admitted by the plaintiff. In that light of the matter, the plaintiff having sought to rely upon yet another agreement which was for a lesser term and the Court having acted on the second agreement which was not produced and marked in evidence, did not entitle the plaintiff to any such decree.

(3.) Since the only contention that the appellant seeks to place reliance on the lease agreement which was for a period 30 years in respect of the property was admitted and therefore, the suit could not have been decreed, the question is whether the trial court was bound to act on the admission by the plaintiff in this regard. No doubt it is laid down under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that, where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may, at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or on its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, may pass such order or give such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admissions. This would not support a document which was required to be compulsorily registered. Therefore, to contend that the above admission would entitle the defendant to a decree of dismissal of the suit by virtue of the same, is not available to the appellant. The appellant having paid the duty and penalty in respect of the document would not save the day for the defendant as the document was a compulsorily registerable document and want of registration would not be supplied by the payment of such duty and penalty. The only defect that is cured is the duty with penalty attracted under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was collected. This by itself would not enable the Court to act upon an unregistered document which was compulsorily registerable. Therefore, the same having been marked in evidence, would not advance the case of the appellant.