H. H. JYOTENDRA SINHJI VIKRAMSINHJI Vs. AMIT ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No.1963/2002 for a possessory decree is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 21.07.2017 made by the learned XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J whereby the subject documents in Ex-O1 & EX-O2 are held to be 'not admissible in evidence' . The respondent-defendant having entered caveat through his counsel resist the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Ex.O1 is dated 07.08.2018 and Ex.O2 is dated 03.10.1949; both are registered Sale Deeds to which the Maharaja of Mysore is a party; consequently the question of payment of Stamp Duty would not arise and therefore the Court below is not justified in holding them to be inadmissible in evidence for want of Stamp Duty.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent per contra contends that: (i) both the subject documents being the sale deeds though required to undergo stamping of due value, having not been stamped, cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever, in view of the provisions of The Mysore Stamp Act, 1900 (hereafter 1900 Act), (ii) under the Indian Independence Act, 1947 (hereafter 1947 Act) enacted by the British Parliament, the Maharaja of Mysore having executed the Instrument of Accession ceased to be the Maharaja and became a commoner; therefore the second document in Ex.O2 dated 03.10.1949 cannot be taken judicial cognizance of; (iii) when original is not stamped or unduly stamped, a party should not be permitted to lead the secondary evidence of the same inasmuch as that amounts to playing fraud on the Stamp Act which is a fiscal legislation, and (iv) the documents now produced in the writ petition are different from those of the Court below and thus fraud is played by the petitioner side. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.