R. SHANTHAMMA AND ORS. Vs. PATALAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri L. Harish Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, Perused the records.

(2.) I.A. No. 10 came to be filed by writ petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1929 of 2006 by invoking Sections 33 and 58 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as The Act' for short), read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for impounding sale agreement dated 1-6-1995 marked as Ex. D. 2 produced by defendants on the ground of said document: being insufficiently stamped. Said contention came to be adjudicated by Trial Court after considering the objections filed to the said application by 1 contesting defendants and on such adjudication, application came to be dismissed on the ground that said document was confronted by the Counsel appearing on behalf of second defendant to P.W. 1 on 8-6-2012 and without there being any objection to marking of the said document it came to be marked and as such, Section 35 of the Act bars such contention being raised.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri L. Harish Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners that a party objecting to document being insufficiently stamped would be entitled to raise such defence even after such document is marked and Section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 does not place an absolute embargo. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of The Secretary, Flat Owners Association, Ranka Plaza Apartments, Bangalore v. N. Thamboochetty and Others, 2015 3 KCCR 2047.