MASNAPPA Vs. SUBADRABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 10.12.2015, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Gulbarga, whereby the learned Civil Judge has refused to admit partition deed dated 25.05.1984, into evident on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped. Moreover, he has impounded the said document without sending it further to the Deputy Commissioner Stamps.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that, the respondent-plaintiffs, Subadrabai and Siddamma, had filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, which was later on converted into a suit for partition and separate possession against the petitioner and against Smt. Veemalabai, the defendant No.2 before the trial court. In the suit the respondent-plaintiffs claimed that they are the petitioner's sisters, and defendant No.2 happens to be the sister-in-law, as she was married to another brother of petitioner. According to the plaintiffs, the property in dispute belonged to their mother. The mother had executed a Will Deed on 28.06.1984, in their favour. When they approached the petitioner in order to get their share of the property, the petitioner refused to part with their share of the property. Hence, the civil suit against the petitioner and defendant No.2.

(3.) The petitioner, as defendant No.1, filed his written statement, and denied the averments in the plaint. According to him the will dated 28.06.1984, was forged and fabricated document created by the plaintiffs, and their husband's, in order to illegally grab the suit property. According to him the mother was the absolute owner of the suit properties. During her life time, she had effected a partition of the property. She had equally divided the property between the petitioner, and his brother. Therefore, he had claimed the title of the property through partition. According to him, the partition was reduced into a memorandum of partition on 25.05.1984. When the petitioner tried to produce the said memorandum of partition during the course of submitting his evidence, the respondent-plaintiffs raised an objection with regard to the admissibility of the said document inter alia on the ground that it is improperly stamped and it is an unregistered document. The learned trial court heard both the parties on the issue whether the document should be admitted in evidence or not By order dated 10.12.2015, the learned Court refused to admit the document in evidence and impounded the same. Hence, this petition before this Court.