BORAMMA Vs. BORAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's writ petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the defendant to mark an unregistered sale deed and also permitting him to pay stamp duty and penalty in respect of the said document.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession of the plaint schedule property. Defendants have filed a written statement contesting the claim. Issues have been framed. The plaintiff has produced both oral and documentary evidence and closed his side. Defendants also have adduced evidence. Thereafter, the defendants' counsel wanted to produce some unregistered sale deeds and wanted to mark them. The plaintiff's counsel objected for the same on the ground that the documents are not duly stamped. They are also unregistered and the way it is produced is not in accordance with law. The Trial Court after referring to various judgments of this Court proceeded to hold that an unregistered document could be marked for collateral purpose. There is no absolute bar for marking the documents. Insofar as the document not being duly stamped, is concerned, the Trial Court said that the Court can impound the document and direct the party to pay duty and penalty. Therefore, it has impounded the document directing payment of duty and penalty and thereafter it wants to mark the document. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends that when once both the parties have concluded their evidence, a party cannot just produce a document before the Court and request the Court to mark the same. Unfortunately, the Trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and has received the documents and now wants to mark the documents. Therefore, he submits that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court is contrary to the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the order is unsustainable.