KAMALA Vs. V ARJUN VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the Order of the trial Court rejecting the application filed to reject the document dated 16.05.2008 is inadmissible in evidence and the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the document still could be used as a promissory note and sufficiently stamped, as against which the present revision came to be filed.

(2.) The application has been taken before the trial Court to the effect that the suit promissory note is not actually stamp under the provision of 49(b) of the Stamp Act. According to him, since the document is insufficiently stamped, the above document is inadmissible in evidence and the trial Court has rejected his contention. Hence, the present revision appeal came to be filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that Ex.B.1 is the memorandum of title deeds and it cannot be looked into for any other purpose since it is not registered. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 2 SCC 532. Hence, submitted that when the memorandum of deposit of title deeds create interest, the same cannot be admitted in evidence without registration of the document. The document in question clearly shows that it is only a memorandum of deposit of title deeds and the same is not registered and therefore, it cannot be used for any other purpose. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that since the document itself is a deposit of title deeds for creating mortgage, it cannot be admissible in evidence and the same cannot be treated as a promissory note. Hence, prayed for allowing the revision.