SANNA PEERASABI Vs. P PEERASABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 20-9-1995, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Chitradurga in Original Suit No. 1168 of 1989, admitting the document which is alleged to be a partition deed.

(2.) I have heard Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yatish Kumar, Advocate holding brief for Sri Kaleemulla Shariff, Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted before me in support of the revision that the learned Court below has acted illegally and in breach of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, in admitting the document which was not stamped at all in accordance with the Stamp Act and in violation of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act. As such he submitted that the order admitting the document in evidence be set aside and the revision be allowed. Learned Counsel for the applicant further placed before me an order which is in Kannada, translated to English. As per reading of that order, the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of the stamp, though objection by the revisionist-applicant has been raised, but has not been decided by the Trial Court. Learned Counsel submitted that the Trial Court has observed that it will be decided at a later stage of the suit and subject to those objections to be decided later on it is being taken on record. He submitted that his objections should have been decided first and thereafter the document should have been admitted, because once it is admitted in evidence and acted upon, then it is not open to review by that Court or by an Appellate Court to consider any such document on the ground, that document was insufficiently stamped, except in cases covered by Section 58 or 61 of the Stamp Act.