KARAR AHMED Vs. RAJANNA VENKATA HANUMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/plaintiff in o. S. No. 5445/2006 on the file of XXIV Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, is before this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the order dated 27-9-2007 at Annexure-A passed sustaining the objection to marking agreement of sale dated 5-5-1997 during the course of evidence of P. W. 1.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendant Nos. 1 to 7' as arrayed in the suit.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under : the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 5445/2006 against respondent Nos. 1 to 7 for declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit land bearing Sy. No. 79 measuring 4 acres and 3 guntas and a portion of land bearing No. 80 measuring 1 acre and 37 guntas both situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 4 and 5 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. The petitioner/plaintiff claims that he has purchased the suit lands from defendant Nos. 6 and 7 under a registered sale deed. The defendants have filed their respective written statement. Issues have been framed. During the course of examination-in-chief of P. W. 1 an agreement of sale deed dated 5-5-1997 said to be executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in respect of the suit schedule property was sought to be marked. But, the Counsel for defendant Nos. 1 to 5 objected to marking of the agreement of sale on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped. It was further contended that the District Registrar has levied less penalty though it attracts levy of penalty ten times of the duty. In view of objection raised by defendant nos. 1 to 5, it has been held that the document is insufficiently stamped and therefore the plaintiff has to pay penalty ten times of duty as per law. This is impugned in this writ petition.