SATELLITE DEVELOPERS LTD Vs. SUMERMAL M BAFNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Motion, the Defendants have objected to the maintainability of the Suit on the ground of bar of limitation. There is a preliminary issue already framed by this Court concerning the bar of limitation. The parties intend to lead oral evidence on the preliminary issue. Plaintiffs have tendered their compilation of documents together with the affidavits of evidence filed by Plaintiff No.5 (P.W.1) and Umesh Merchant (P.W.2) in lieu of examinationinchief inter alia for proving the documents.

(2.) SR . Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the list of documents are (i) original agreement dated 14 April 1989 executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 9, (ii) original ancillary agreement dated 14 April 1989 executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 9 and (iii) original supplemental agreement dated 20 November 1993 executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 to 9. The Plaintiffs' witness P.W. 1 has deposed to the execution of these documents in paras 5, 6 and 11 of the affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Defendants, however, objects to these three documents being admitted in evidence on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty paid thereon. It is submitted that the agreement dated 14 April 1989 read with the ancillary agreement of the same date, considered as a whole, clearly indicates that the real transaction between the parties was of sale of immovable property. It is submitted that this immovable property was the only asset of Defendant No.10 Company. It is submitted that whilst construing an instrument for the purposes of ascertaining the charge of stamp duty, one ought not to go by the label of the instrument but must look at the substance of the document.