N. ETHIRAJ CHETTIAR Vs. SAMUNDEESWARI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants, who are the appellants, before the Court below are the revision petitioners. Challenging the order passed by the appellate Court in dismissing the application filed by them under Sec. 38 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in I.A.No.42 of 2015 in A.S.No.14 of 2013, seeking a direction to impound Ex.B1 and collect stamp duty with reasonable penalty and to certify the same in Ex.B1, has preferred this revision.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioners is that, the respondents herein filed a suit seeking p ition of the suit scheduled property based on a family arrangement. The written family arrangement, known as Koor Chit was marked as Ex.B1 on their side and the same was marked subject to objection. However, it is stated that the trial court has not framed any issue qua the admissibility of Ex.B1 but had given a finding that the same was inadmissible in evidence, since the same was not duly stamped. Since Ex.B1 is a family arrangement, it need not be stamped and registered as the same is evidencing partition. According to the defendants/petitioners, Ex.B1 having been marked and admitted in evidence, shall not be called in question at any stage of the proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. However, the trial court has held that Ex.B1 is inadmissible in evidence, which is contrary to law. Therefore, the defendants have preferred an appeal and pending appeal, the above application was filed to collect stamp duty with reasonable penalty and certify Ex.B1 to make it admissible in evidence.

(3.) The said application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs, who are the respondents in appeal, contending that the application itself is misconceived and the same is not maintainable as per Sec. 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [in short, 'the Act']. It is further stated that though the argument in the appeal was over, as the learned District Judge, who reserved the orders was transferred before the pronouncement of the judgment, the appellant is said to have taken advantage of the situation and filed such an application. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the same.