Karnataka High Court
S Pushpalatha vs Sri B V Ramaiah on 7 February, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
W.P.No.40330/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. S PUSHPALATHA, 28 YEARS
D/O LATE M SHEKAR
R/AT NO.175, 4TH A MAIN
3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 079
2. KUMARI S. POORNIMA, 16 YEARS
D/O LATE M SHEKAR
R/AT NO.50/1, 5TH MAIN
9TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560018
REP. BY HER MATERNAL
GRAND FATHER i.e. SRI P SRINIVAS
S/O T. PAPANNA, 71 YEARS
R/AT NO.50/1, 5TH MAIN
9TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560 018. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)
AND :
1. SRI B V RAMAIAH, 66 YEARS
S/O V K VENKATAPPA SETTY
R/AT NO.101, OLD NO.64
5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560 018
2
2. SMT B S SUJATHA, 48 YEARS
W/O B V RAMAIAH
R/AT NO.101, (OLD NO.64)
5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560 018
3. SRI B.M. RANGARAJU, 55 YEARS
S/O LATE B.R. MADHAVA RANGANNA
R/AT NO.91/2, 7TH CROSS
3RD MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
KCB BUILDING, OUT HOUSE
BANGALORE-560 018
4. SMT S RUKMINI, 48 YEARS
W/O SRI V.R. SRINIVAS
D/O LATE B.R. MADHAVA RANGANNA
R/AT NO.95/1, 7TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018
5. SMT LAKSHMI, 35 YEARS
W/O LATE RUKMANGHADHA
6. KUM SHRUTHI, 19 YEARS
D/O LATE RUKMANGHADHA
7. MASTER GURU KIRAN, 17 YEARS
S/O LATE RUKMANGHADHA
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS
MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. LAKSHMI
REP. NOS.3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT C/O B G RANGSWAMY
BANDIHALLI, KYATASANDRA
TUMKUR
8. SRI K.B. RAMESH, 69 YEARS
S/O K C BANASHANKARAPPA
3
R/AT NO.91/2, 3RD MAIN
7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET
BANGALORE-560 018
9. SRI K R SATISH, 36 YEARS
S/O K.B. RAMESH
R/AT DOOR NO.131
SHANTHIDAHAMA SCHOOL ROAD
CHANDRAPPA LAYOUT
SUNKADAKATTE
BANGALORE-560 091
10. SMT K.R. SAVITHA, 34 YEARS
W/O LATE G SHIVAKUMAR
D/O SRI K.B. RAMESH
NO.77, 1ST CROSS
NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE
SADASHIVANAGAR
NELAMANGALA TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-91. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B R VISWANATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; R4, R8 & R10 -
SERVED; R3, R5 TO R7 & R9 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
V.C.O.DT.11.01.2013)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
When the supplemental agreement dated 22.04.1995 was sought to be tendered in evidence, learned counsel appearing for transposed plaintiffs raised objection regarding admissibility of said document. The learned trial Judge granted time to address the arguments on the question of admissibility of supplemental agreement dated 22.04.1995.
2. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
3. On 20.07.2012, learned counsel for transposed plaintiffs was absent. The learned trial Judge, without considering the contents of supplemental agreement dated 22.04.1995, by relying on agreement of sale dated 08.01.1994 has held that original agreement has been sufficiently stamped and determination of sufficiency or insufficiency of stamp duty of supplemental agreement dated 22.04.1995 does not arise. The document has been tendered in evidence. This order has been called into question by transposed plaintiffs 1 & 2.
5
4. The learned trial Judge having noticed objections raised by learned counsel for transposed plaintiffs whether supplemental agreement dated 22.04.1995 was sufficiently stamped or not, should have heard learned counsel for contesting parties and decided the matter on merits to arrive at proper conclusion. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in [1962] 2 SCR 333 (in the case of Javer Chand & Others Vs. Pukhraj Surana) to contend that once the Court, rightly or wrongly decided to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties were concerned, the matter was closed.
In the aforestated judgment, the Supreme Court has held that after the document was received in evidence, the parties cannot raise objection that document was insufficiently stamped.
6
In the case on hand, when the supplemental agreement was sought to be tendered in evidence, the learned counsel for transposed plaintiffs has raised objection that document was insufficiently stamped.
6. The learned trial Judge has not looked into the contents of supplemental agreement dated 22.04.1995 and not recorded a finding that it is sufficiently stamped or not. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The writ petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The learned trial Judge shall reconsider the question whether supplemental agreement dated 22.04.1995 has been sufficiently stamped or not after hearing learned counsel for contesting parties. The learned trial Judge shall not be influenced by the observations made herein.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN