B Thippeswamy vs Gowramma on 4 April, 2008

[Cites 10, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

B Thippeswamy vs Gowramma on 4 April, 2008

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA AT.WE;4§i€§'3.£§izORE
DATED '1':-us THE 4% DAY or AP1?.IfL,.     .

nDFDRE,_

   

B. Thippcswaxny,

S/'0 Basa.ia'I1_.=-- V  

Aged about;  g   " 
R/0 SL11¢ne;hai}y-.vi11gge,  
Raga};-ura Pm-;1:., ' .   .-
Mo1aka1rﬁ11fu'*}§a;l11k;"  'D
Ci1ii1'aLiL1I'g£1_VDi$ii'i=:;i;;*  '

 ' ' L     Q '  Pctzitioncr
(By S11iVB'.--M. S1'Vdd-f_{1ppEi;.." Adv. )

. 'Gdw51*2a11In1a, Difﬁasaialx,
' :"A.S¢d &b0_1it 44 Years.
 " _RjD_S1_11ciﬂ1a1ly viilagc,
'-- A Rayapu:-aPDst,
;':'»ﬁ01aI:sii1Di.;  Taiuk,
Chitfadurga District.
' A  "  Rcspoudtrzxi
 (By Sri. C. Shivalmmar, Adv.)

v T11is Writ Ptttilion ﬁled u11I.i::1~' Articlt::s 226 and 227 of Lhc

 Couslii.ulio11 of India prayizxg to quash the order pas.-scd by the
lezarntzrl Civil Judge {S1-.I')n.) C'ma1}akem, in O.S.NO.123]2005
dated 17.9.2005 vide Am1exure--D.

This petition having been 1'<::sc.-1'v<:d, coming on for

pzronounccmcnt, this day, V"F3i\TTI:'i(')F1'5.i..I'L €i('§"v'vTJA. J.,
prollounced the following:



ORDER

Pctitiuntzl' is the pL':1i11t1'ﬂ' in on the ﬁle of the Civil Judge di1't:c'1.i11g the Licfclltialnt to. _1'C(i'Ct5IAI1""!.i1(:' "pi'()j1){:'1'ty by paying loan amoullt. R:s.77~,80C]-- :}:\iViUl future illtcrest, failing w11i:§_1i';.. to Sell VtJ'1s+_ schedule p1'upert.y in public auction For 1'(Ai§21liSi.11gV__11:IC ;3t1I,t(nu.1;;L:: Rt"3Sp0I1dtiIlL has i'1'a1ucd V*§)ti1'i11g the comma oi' triai of the 2 as wl1cthc:1' the luoltgagcj deed p1'0dt_tue:ti be 1'(i(:CiVt3d in c:vide11Ce. S4i.j'1Ct3,il. titzacs. "that, the deed was an L1111'cg,istc1'r:d 5 llxj.

p1'::€.:l. ,.*'*.;_ .+-«'._ .!:ea11ug .':,a1':1-an (.,cuL.t;t.:l on both \."§1u'd':-3 aheut ._ ""ct).i' the m01't.gagc deed in cvitiellcti, trial Court.

lias V'-.V11t:i{{ that the deed is i1lE:1dlIlit5Sibl(:: in evidt-311cc.

' IQt1t:$ti0Iii11g the said order, this writ petition has betzn am.

2. S11 ELM. Siddappa, lCaI'I1tid Counsel a])pcaI'i11g for the petitiontzr had on 17.10.2005, submitted befon: this 'V/:

I . ' U) Court, that the pcLiliont:1' propuses 'Lo cunﬁm: __j1't~:iit~:i' in the plaint, only fur recuvt:1'y of money for I'(idt'.II1}J1iOI1 of Iuortgagc. 011 24. 1().2005;. af3.§:::

Lhc Iucmo ﬁled 1'esl1'i<;ti11g me"pi--aye:: £31113' _fdi*_ _1*c(:ci«'vt:1'__v of 'L .

liiﬁiiii" nut 10' 9-4 hr] SE *5

5.:

H =:

:5 K 5:

..

<3 3 "= E:

" u-5 V .

..

ga-

5?

H rt 1 53 he =2 3-:

0'5 Lo hut ,.....

liolice of the writ pt:LiLio11 W'aS»u1'dc1'£::i_ t;e Eac 'i5:si"1cd to the I't:spo11dt:11L

3. I lxealjd' S1ii""'[3'.'I*J};. 'Sfi<.1giapp§i;"' Iczajned Couusei appcalilgzg fQ1'_a11t1 :IS1j_ S11ivaku1ua1', lcattut-:d C'.uu1u:s--e}_'z§ippt:éi'z:j1.1g~fQ;=__1t:S}w1.1<iE:11t. and pc:1'msed the 1't:co1'd 44.5' " _S1i4.VB.M;£§'id:.Iapi}a, lealzued Counsel for peliliollei', «.;,=;1!*.:1\"\.L my -:«.1.Li_..1;I_:it__:1.1 to the ordtarts passed on 4.1u.z.Uur, 1t:~s'ai'icti11g the 1'céit:.{' Fm' i'<:c0w t§1'y Inuney, co11tc11dcd that the trial C»0u1'L has "V A .1;g'J1¥1Vj11..iLLcd juriesdictioxlal error and illegality in passing the 'mipugllcd order. He co11tc11ded that, since the relief now is only £91' 1'cc<,".n.:1'_\,w (sf mr..=11r.:y, 111:,-1.1'1&.i_ug 91' 1.13:: tju;:u;m:1;L in

----I -------- .-1 - . .. . ' -_ I ....... ..

quceslioli, wouid be oniy for 'coiiatcx-ax puI'pu5<-L' and ucuuc \ /.

is permissible. He oolztelnicd that, since the dug:~u__1m:11L in question is 1'cqui1'ed to be looked inl.0xtl1e collateral purpose, paylucztnt of stamp \<);I._' its 1101: 1'c.g'5l..1B_1iQ1;, does not 2 COilSf:qi_ifiIiCf3. Ht: t:i'::'d tin: fu1}6»w1i'*-:1.-:cis.g:;;S;v '

1. (D1'o11a1111'aju) Rama f~?:"ag5'Aa11d o{11¢1"s.§'s Kcssap1'agaLia Vcdayya 311:1 qtihcrs r_c.p_orted_» in 1923_Maic1ras 447 '2. Kanju and Ividbiji Shumnuga:

reported AIR 1932 ._Mad1fas--*'?T34 __

3. 14.:-a1'c;_{1r.ii?;e;.V-'1'~Iﬁ1.l;€ C,;s_'ii_1;1l:'L:1fy...»:vs Dwijcrndla Nalh " 1¢:'.£:L_1'..l1cd Counsel appcarillg 1'01' (J1 " in 5-4' ;-1 o E") 1'e$poﬁ£i€I1l.; Vi1.§\}ii;iui1g my atttaiiiiuix 'L0 'uh: "'v'ﬁ"'iii'='1i'L8 i.u__ AtLl1'c~:a "plz.ﬁx.aL, issues l'1'amed in the suit, copy of the ' "$11 qutzsliolx dalmd 30.10.1988 and the " passed by the trial Court, co11l.c11dcd that '.116':-;A=."..:1L is c1....i1'eJv J1-z'.-'.3-J.1 on deed. MI 11101 which 1125.3 'l_.Q__ Q C' '5' V' V. _1i(_aL betzn tirawn on the stipuiaied siamp papa'-; it not. a Itgistered document and hence the t;1'i.a_1 Cuurl. is jusljﬁed in holding the deed is ilmdluissiblt: in tzvidence.

\/ /r-

6. COIiSid(3I'il1g the Iival COIll.t.'.Ill.i01lS writ petition, the point. that arises for my co11si4._1o1'at.io11"ias1,v_"o W11t:L11o1' the l.n°alj'Cou:rL&_ axiy ' jurisdictional error and: iliogalityt, ]*1of1r1i1A3;;;;A £1162 = znoligag-3 deed elated -30. 1.0.1988, i1a:--;.r~i1;;:i;~;s.s-;:1+.: in evidence? T " A '

7. A })('3I'l1S-1:11 of .111::'av¢:Iii1é:1--..Ii4.s vilzacic i11"'l;hté plainl. shows that, pla:i11L1I' I and d~eft:1 1dVai1L_--=._;}i1'of~. _b_1'0lhc1' and sit-'.t.c1';

d<~:fonda11t.; o»%:11t§1\~»oi' p1'o';'§e1'Iy_VVVé;l1ow11 in the schedule 1"'o12 ho1i'ov}i11g -- and has executed 111c)1'tgagoA of witnesses on 30.10.1988 and as Small' is the lnorrlgageo and ciofolzdalxt is _ ﬁlo i"~i1;t)i't.gago1'. It has been speciﬁcally avolrod in the 'ifﬁlli l'a{'J.I'II.I']f\'I\" 1:' cu 4 "aud,.__'a'iaso'~"poassession in his Favour on Lht: date of oxooulio11 . _oI' .mo;1'tgage deed. ll. has heel: ['urtht:1' aVC1'l.'t3d that as per "the 111o1'Lgago deed, Lhe relief noticed supra, has been played. Issue 110.1 f1'amod'by trial Cou1'i.i:5 to the elfect, 3 \''W*-

em I 7' 5 31.10.1998?". Co11sid<:1"i11g the objection "the admissibility of the mortgage deed in §;;vid¢:11L:_e, L'1m"l.i{riu11g-- .

L1a_L, LL :5:-;1_I--c 1; 1-3!. :4. zcvislvr r 'J m I H 171-»-

ihe deed being a 1no1>igage"---Adeed, T1*€-';qLv1'i1'E:d°': in 'L1t3 colnpulsorily 1'cgisl.t:1'cd ii1_i(ie:1' Scclioii 117 of the Rt:gi5L'('13.l.i0I1 Act, 19§_8, 11:45 Luce}; passed.

Colitemiun of Sri C.'ou11:se1 for the 1'ecuve1'y 1:1_tij_;ey 's-1m.i'i1i:-L Ibi'19¢dVt:u1plio11 oI'mo1'Lgagt:, the cl<J(:t.:\:111t:11_tS lit: vl_o"ol§ed into for collaterezl purpose is uliaccépléibleyili"i(it:y\}"«4;§i"i11t: ﬂact that, ave1'1ue11Ls made: in thg:"plai11L '-axfe' c1c§a1 and lucid, that Lhe i1'a11zsat:l.ion _"0§"'*1.i_1ui1pgé1gu1' and Inoﬂgagec and the p1'aye.1' in the shit . to di1'c(:l. the defelldani. to I't3dt:'ti1ll the mortgage "V n }:1fqpé1'Ly by paying loan a111ounL of Rs.77,800/-- with ii1l'x§1'csL and to sell the property for 1'calisaLioI1 of the " .a.muuL-.L. I'.'le1'ciy ..t::;a-ass the dactmiem new aought L"

1lC(3tiSSaI'lly mean that it can be let in for Ll1at».1"pai1)osc, even though the deed is not duly sta111pcd."'Al:_:l' . 'T

8. Section 34 ol'L11e Ka111aL:a__ka:_-Slléullip .:zl%.tl:'i;-, Q] wil.l1 i11su'Lu11c'uLs not L11.1l3IlV_:;i.,an11.Vie{lla1ld that 110 i11sl1'u1nt:11t;wl1icl1V_la':-lalueafgaablalo Lluty shall be a<,'.miss....c in c\.Ii....a1';:_-.l.l':j..'L.3.i' Q1' allail be acted upon, 1'egisi7t§I-'cgi pm';-3011 <31' 15"

public is duly stamped.

The used in St'.Cl.i01l 34 of l_llCi.A'(3l;_*, 'is. illclude use of the documcilt for a cullaléiral .'i«'!.J.1"v~.u';t~:l. J.' i...':..31.:-.'-eI..'.i..i:_:-2;, I11 i.l1t_=. case of A' ﬁne Commissioner, 1" ysar Cit"

' and others reported in ILR 2003 liar. 1653 .'w'll1ilel'--iip1£'side1*i11g the colltcntion that uIl1'CgiSL6l't:d c_loc_ui;_1c11l., which was compulsoiily 1'cgiste1'ablt: undcrr 17 of L116 Re'*'al1'ali91; "CL, 1908 ;£.II.,I.1..1 be 1'..ll-_=.t_i upon and adxliiilcd in evidmlcc in prove. a c:0liai.<-;Ta1 tlansaction as csuvisagcd by proviso 1.0 Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 has held as follows:

\/ / r"

"'7. That. a document is being adi1.iitleii"'fo1' a Coiiaterai ptirpose does not however' 'neeeee_.a.*i13' meal: that it can be let in for lira; pIj,e..1Jose.eve5.i when it is not duly staJ:r1ped.--' " "Se::}':ion~ 34} of the' Ka1'naLai<.a Stainp T'Ac.:L," . 195?',- witli instruments not dxdyj :3_tamped .inter_'aiia'"~. "

provideas 'that no i_neirur.i1e11'L wi1ii:}.1: "e1iar'geahie to duty shall be__a:imisSib1e .evir,_ien.ee1 for any purpose or slialldiee acted. _L1'pei1, "1jegisle1'ed or authenticated b§,z..._a;r1y p_er5t)I1"QIfA1i)}'3 any public officer un1_e's...s 'c3Iii1C1v._IVid1l!$i'.I"lz.l1.I..1(3l1L is duly stamped.

The expression any' used in Section 34 of S{:nu1;AeL, 1957, is wide enotlgh to i11eiude«..ju.ee -of any document for a '~%oi!a;1.e1'a.l'*-- pé.uj.\oee. oi" -----ivI'E!l195$.i.L?Li(J1L, In "RAM 1 'vs_V~BARMAN'ANo, AIR 1946 PC 51, their ._.Lo1'd:si1i1;s.iiei'd._ um. 'Q16 words. 'for any ptirpeee' ~ . _ U-sed'*i;n Sec'ti.o11'3*-4uo"f the Karnataka Stamp Act, "i.1ad_['o,V_iJe given their natural meaning and '5" '1eIade even a eollaterai purpose for Mr .usx,n _ i rw11ie.:l1'={;l';e relying upon the dU(.'!l1I1l(:'1.lL like .ft;1'1e saine to be adniitted. Tiie foiiowing passage i1':_t_1i:iS l'ti;'gaI'd is apposite:

their natural Qiiieaiiiiig and effect. and wouid include a collateral purpose. Where an unstamped document is adniiued in proof of some collateral rnatter it is certainly admitted i_n_ evidence for that purpose which the SLaLuLe has prohibited. Consequeniiy an L1I1Sf£:'lI'I'1pt':Ci parlilioii deed cannot be used to colroborate the oral evidence for the purpose of determining even the faeiiiin of pm'l.L..i.I11 distinct from its terms"

"iiie words 'Ear any 1" rnow' in - ettlinn 35;

Stamp Act, should line 'ven

8. It is therefore dtjfcult to accept the submission made by Mr. Shetty that just unregistered dorgument can be u€uu."""'€a'S€ 3??

wdmitted in evidence for praying at 'ooilqteral transaction, any such use wouid fént_:itVEé:i_ the document to be marked as an exhz§i:r'it« the provisions of Section 34 of the Ka_rnc:s.ta_Ic-:.i "St'am'p Act', 195"/', Ti':.e provisiors qf Act rerruzin liniited to ooI1seq1_ien,ce:s--.of }:on'--j registration of =».pomp1,Li.so:ily 'négistrabie d.r2.r:r..:r.-"-*..I.=.-'nt-5. The .$¢.1id:g_9iouISion§:%.idae.s tum: (ion! with or stipulate =-the GGﬂS€q1L€!t¢€?g that jblloufif an insitrumeni to 3:23' prop-e*i"2, rat duty stamped. That p_¢;irt.V_is.*.._provided for% separately by provisions of Seoéioia.._34 ofV"thé-2 Kamataica Stamp A.£:!,7 .!.95i7;{j not make any exception infaziouri of..ciofc.urryents sought to be acZmitteci~"i1i" éiaiciereoe for jo:"rovi7ig fi coiiateral :i'rcabrf;.soctr3orz.: an instrument is 'chd%geablc__Awith-._dujity, the provisions of Section _ ..vw<.";':-£97., ".*é.jnder.i~it madmizzsilnle in evidence for

---- _ p1irpose;'unL=:$§vthe some is duly stamped.

9."'ff-».fI'1ie"'p1*'ovieso to Section 34 plmsciibos the 4' _ oon_ditio1i:3.__£§11.bject to which a document which its '1iG[g_ {'av!<'._:{}' -.s€;--=.mpcd. no.1; 1.1:: admitttzd in V svidénce. It inter alia provides for payment of x t11k:~.c1.L1_t.y with which the tialilfi c11a1'g<:'ab1t or " in the case of an instrument insufﬁciently i"-o"s1_a1nped, the aiuount whicli is 11-;qui1't:d to . A -« up such duty t.oge.th6.:1' with the T_ 5'p1*es(.'1'ibcd penalty. Suﬁioc it to say that thcrt: is no conflict between what is perinittcri 'oy the proviso to Section 49 of the Rcgistratioii Act on the one hand and Section 34 of Karnataka Act, 195?, on the oL11c1'. The. :,it:1n_a11d of duty and penalty in terms of the proviso to Section 34 bt:i'o1°e the docuineiii. could iiiﬁ marked in token of its having been adinitttzd in evidence did not therefore suffer from any i:7iTUi" of law to wairant. i}}!£I'§t'.-1'l.:311L?£;L a 1natLt:1' of I'a<:l,, wliciicvcr an 0bj('JCU.£)I.l itzgarding the admissibility of an instriunent on the

7.-

4{.§ieoeas'ed'.v uby.7'L. Re)" and others, reported in AIR zoo].

ground of its bei11g L111:s'ta1npev:1 or iiaeaﬂiiciexzily ste..1n'{zec_1 is raised, the Court iS~~.If8qﬁifB(i 3 to d<::Lt:1'111i11e the ubjectiull bt:I'o1'e .pi*uo'e(:cii11g'v further, unlike '-£1161" cases where. anfobjec:tion--..

to the ad1nis:sibilil.y vufae-£1L)Cl'1ll1lfi1'Ii.-V§21lV'a1_lf}.( o1_.he1'_ ground may be exa.n11no_d at }ete1'.VVe_tage £mr.1._ the r.1t.,u.'.I_111;t:11t. LeIl{.é1li\*c1y 1I>l*3_I'.]tC.t'}(:':' avoid ' delay in reco1'r1ing"Aof" the=*+:vidonC}e.'< "the decisiums of ii1e'v..Sup1'emo._ C':.1;;1".L i'1.;"'RAI01RA'l'AN vs BHAJRANG LRL, AIR "19f?8 1393, and "BIPIN .S}:1AN'}.'iLAL" 'STATE OF GUJ£~.RA"1LT' gA0:_)1;_ C1'i;_L.J;~1_254, and that. of a Single Bench Ofethis' "CfL')l,1"I"t. in "RIYAZ KHFKN AN-I) OT.}'iER§%3 =MD"E)1"'1'Sfi*~f;)i~1AMMED IBMAIL :'AN;D" O'F}"1ER$, *ILR o~_2.05?;2 Kar. 3369, ciearly *$_cf.t_1e_d 'the iega1._4--pjo.sitioh"'i11 this "egard."

.... :',;.::;;;,. by 111el'uI'e1np11asis) 9' ﬂoddabasappa us Gui-*&w-N-;.*a 'A co11:side1*i11g Lhe culitcntiulx that the doculncnt, into 4.1' ¢.:.o11_aLe1'al purpo:-;t: and could be '""ad11'iiLt+_':'t°.1 in tzvidcnce for Coilat'-'1'a} ;:urp~'..\:-1.. !:'.!\!(:311 if it was .y 'A : a11ot''(:1u1y stamped, has held as follows:

"12. Section 34 of the Act, as has been quoted above, mandates, no documeytt shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose, unless it is duly stamped. Section puts 2:: oompiete embargo and bar against admissibility of such (1 document which is not stczmped, or which. :3 not duly stamped, and it cannot be r.n..o.de use q_ffar any purpose, it meaps for all the purposes.

,/4 In...

|_..

When I so, o'esewe, I lind suppe1'LV;!'~:_;i.t_4iiiiy \.?i':\.I.F from the decision of their LOI'dSl1ip§$»Qf1T.i1¢"PI'iVy Council in the ease of Kalli' "--RfaLl;a1i v.

Pmmanand, AIR 1946 PC__'5~~l.,'-i;v~l1e;'e tlieir Lordships observe atpage 53,v'Co'iL1Irxn'_ 3:

"With this latter i'epii'_ii.oi1 'Lo1'd:sl.1_Vips 'A not in agreement. 'As already V'1"1ot.ed,'*'S.*'35, Iudiaii SLa111p_'"r';.eL, till'.-1t3LC:5_ Vlliatiioi .i3u'sl.1'11111e11L chargeable with' duty ' be; admitted in evidemie for ' ' vl'=:i1t..v"l2ei.veastie as part his arg;§1.:1_11eiit% for the respondent adopted ;Ll1e>,i1oLe_"oi'1._ "the words "f'o1' any rpurposm:-.'.'.,_in contained in Edn. 4, of Sir «»D'i1islial1_, 1\_?lulla's"_-heok:« on the Indian Stamp act, 1.899,. He poi'nted"out that the words "for pL11jfpo'se':"V_fiifst..appeared in India in the V 1'E§»tan.1_p--. Act of 1879, and in England in the oi'""i;i-'£51, and that under the earlier V' there were decisions in both countries iiiai, unstaiirped doe-uiiient miglit be 'admitted, in evidence for a collateral purpose, Vl.liat'=_is,"i.o prove some matter other than the ' '' aim - action recorded in the ins'r._n;r;ent, and lie""s'ub111i1.teLl that these eases applied even under the later Acts. "l"'nei:r Lordshiias do not V take this view. A doeumelil. admitted in p1'eol.' of some collateral matter is adinitted in evidence for that iniruose, and the statute enacts that it shall not be admitted in evidence for any purpose. Tileir Lord;-sliips see no reason Why the words "for any purpose" in the Indian Stamp Act. of 1879 should not be given their naturm meaning and effect. Such words may well have been inserted by the Legislature in order to get rid of the di.[l'ieull.i.es surrouiidilig the question of what. amounted to a c\:ol1ateral purpose."

"X In this View of the matter, (he was justriﬁed in rejecting the co1;'tentio;tf1~1't11at doeumeln could be admitted -:. 1'01', po11'a;e;<a1'ee% purposes. ' " --

13. Even this 7!»l1e_"ca:sr3'w-e__oE,E1Z. A1;;a;11aL11 v. Smt. P's;;_Lt"aniu1a"(2UOG) "4ﬂE{é1i.1L L} 55, has expressed the sam.e"ﬁeW, as just}. and in .deei_"-3101;; "Hu1:'ble Raveendran, J., 'CQn5'1_derec1«. . the izlistinetion beLwee11.ihe language Lined in 3.34 and 3.49 of the Reg-is';1'.a.tiQr.ra;_» }\Let:--,.fa_1(::1 ._e-pi11ec1 that under 3.34, bar is-1absolute-..§i11d.vtiocunlelnl. cannot be Aadmitied *fo:'1"' aiiy'-p111"*pQ$e in evidence."

= by for emphasis)

10. 1h eéLse.§:§i' i'€é¢"ia'y Va. ﬁﬁipparwm and Others,' x1'epoI'te_d' 'f4'1V112' KAR 5163 considering a sin1i;1au'_co1'1u£e1:1VAlio1.i, ii'-lléie been held as folluwsz 5'.No doubt, it was sought L0 be angued by the V ~ V.1ear_11ed Counsel for the petitioner that the said df'<'3s;.'.;;-.1'.r:.e11f. ﬂzuug; in.-.~:-I.I..f'1'1t.:ic,-.11l..1y eL;«.11u1.u:L1, Iuay A 'jbje admitted for collateral purpose. But, I am ' . .-daflaid Lhai. the document, ihat, which ixlsuiﬁciently stamped, cannot permitted to be used for collateral purpose in View 01' Section 34 of the Karn.=2-.taka -'.-3&1!) Act. wh_ir.-.11 r.:1ea_r1y prescribes Lhat no i11s1;I'u111e11L chaxgeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any pu1'p0se."'

11. In the case of Hanumanumul Barid Vs. Ananthapadmanabha, reported in ILR 1992 KAR 1133, V ar consideling a siiuilar contention, it has bee-niuae follows:

"6. The leained Cou11'sel.cf<i1' t_l1e'~ 'peliti.o1ie1',' contended that. the S_ajd...dee€tc> bewftookeci into [or collateral purpose_ and wultit «.be,_"1=e1ied upon to show the..__nat11re'of the"ijeepont1ent?se. of {lieu ""}31'eIi1ieee. _"'_}'li*'--, jiiiliciplc relied upon by the learned Ceunsel, is actually based on' ~.__the to Section 49 of Regietratieia Aet, 2. 'acee;rg1i:1g to which, a 1'egiete1'able docL1'1iiei1t,.~._iI' hot; Ifegieteted, may be reoeiveegt» eviiieiieea er? ariy ceilaterai t1;:eiIi't*~.=.eZi3ti0i1 not' 1«'eq'uj_i1ie;1¢f'to be elTe<:t.ed by _ regisieliedv inst1jL1n1_eIit,. V _ .... _ "?..%_"'He1_'e, we.__a:'e«.c_o11ee111ed with Section 34 of V t'r1,e_V Stajiip Act under 'vvhieh 'i1.1$'u'tu;1e1»1tecV_"Mot; duly stamped are not V " admiS'eib1e"'ev'ide11ce for any purpose. There is .1.ir.i' exeeptitrii ei_11iﬁ:_a1' t_.(_) the proviso to Section 49 of Tthei Registration Act. On this aspect of tiie" 'que_etio11, the auiheiitative B-eeieieii of the Council in RAM RATTAN VS PARMA VNAND (AIR 1946 PC 51) is quite clear. 1'-3e¢.:tiu11 .';5-pef the Indian. Stamp Act siiniler to A j Section 34 of the I(a:mataka. Stamp Act. The ' , {Privy Council heici that the W01'-ds 'for any purpose' in Section 35 of the Stamp Act should be given their natural meaning and effect and weaild include 9. eeilatezm }.n.i1'poee= Wiiere an unstamped document is admitted in proof of some coiiatelai matter it is C€I'tBi11iy aciiiiitted in evidence for that purpose which the statute has prohibited. Conesequelitly an ulietamped paﬁitiori deed carmet be used te corroborate the oral evidence for the purpoases of detemiining even the facttlm of partition as distinct fmm its terms. 'I'11e1;_e is no scope to 5x 9 u...-

3:».

induct an exception for coI1al..e1'a1 -'})'u"1_'ptiees, under Section 34 of the Stamp Aetf" « .. .;.

12. In the case of C.K. i j 2 Gowramma, reported in and uzustramped dQeLi;11e11t""'iIi§" e'v7'itieI1ce""fo1"V collateral purpose, l.1a.'5 held as foli0i\a'vs':ij *..S'_ecti()11 £34' at thje..I_{aji'11aLaka Stamp Act. tt1at_V110.._.-dmfsument shall be admitted 3: in_.-evide11(:e'=£'e1'"'a143,: purpose, Llllitititi it is duly VSE:-Cti_Q_11 _.3-4 of the Act puts a "i:ajin_ip1"jte _ and against _ 'adniis-ssiiiziiitgg (if such a document which is not =st.a1.upetl._o1*-wiiieii is not duly stamped and the same' CEi§1]Ii£)f_.'eb€ used for any purpose, In the u11:;§.tai.1£; case:, under the agreelneiit. of sale date:i_2?,11.20G4, the petitieneﬁe peeseeeieii Wilid eiijdyilielit 01' the schedule property is in e v.p'e2r_t performance of the agreement. Therefore, " t11eja$~,;e111e11t of sale in questiuli [ails u1_1d.e1.' ' --A1ét'tc1e 5E. Therefore, the stanlp duty is ~ jiéiyahie 35 the ceiiveyaiiee speciiied in 'Article 20. Admittedly, the agreement of sale dated 27.1.2004 is insuﬂicielilly stamped. Therefore, the a_g1'eeme11t I:-1° sale e3..h.11et. be adlnitted in evidence unless duty and penalty in paid. Hence the impugneci order passed by the Trial court is in accovdaiice with law.

U-' 8; '1'1_I.e b_.1l1.§1lLi£J11 9! 1.11,. 1em'.r.i.,... f.;f.Jl.lIl«.1f$ the petitioner is that under Sectioxi 4-9 0 the Registration Act an unregistered and ilisuiliciezitly stamped document could he \/-

-I r-

(1- received in evidence to prove any ptirpoee. This question. r_:.:-1_1:ii"e"--« fu_13 " :.for CUI1SidtiI'aLi0ll before this Court inl'_K. }'.nie.i'1;;<i_l'1i *

-1 v. Smt. '13uttan1111a, _ wherein. the scope of'E§ec*tinn'..A34;of 'K.'a111:¥::tai:a Stamp Act and Section <}9.of 'L11e.I€egi$t§'aiti'"11 Act came up for coil:-tidersitiorz. 'Zf§v.e »Coe.rt't:,eidV as ulider: 'T ' ' " d "The di11'ere11ee peitweeivz Section 34 of the I{a.Inat.aka1"@:"'s.ia111p Ael; Seel.io1i"49 of the Reget11.tio1'"3 ~A.et.: }ei?;oVt1Idffz=,lse borne in mind. Section 34 Says 'f"'V13io _-~.i_1V1"ei;jt'~11_1J..1e11L chargeable wit.'h;d.L1ty ehéiilﬂbe "ed'n_1itted:'in evidence for any p1o.11'po;§e, or egiiall be"ae*...e_d_f upon, registered or e';ithe13.tic'etec__! ..i;)y.-.;. . .1'. . unless such instrumer1t

-:j_di:iiy ':g».':'e3.»:ei.. to the provision o, _en_abiing i;|.1'eV_Co'u:".t_to' collect the deﬁcit Stamp Aéiuiy, the 1)a1:_Lu1de1' Section 34 is abeoiule and an i which is not duly stamped "£:a1mVo"L-[be'ad"II1i'i.t.ed at all in evidence for any N x r -in ' «--_.[3m*pose. . Jn. .._.1e other hand, Section 49 of the RegiSti'aLio11.At:L which deals with the effect of u 1'1oI1'¥'1'egi5.tr.'-,1t.ion Act which deais with the effect V 11011-reQ:s1ratio11 of documents provides that _*i.f " .2. document. which is required to be is not registered, then A' G . '~. . 1 . I l ~ 1 L61 CU U1 iiﬂj} .u:A.vv 'jsticli document shall not affect any immovable ' .V »p1'ope1'{.y coluprised thelrein, 1101' can it confer any power to adopt nor can it be received as evidence of any LI'ﬂl1SaCLi(}I1 affecliiig such 1J1'0p€iT.jy' or conferring 3 ch power. the proviso to Section 49 provides Lhat an unregistered instrument. may be received as evidence of a colitrael. in a suit. for speciﬁc performance or as evidence of part.

perfoiiiiaiiee of a coiitraet for 'die purpose of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act or as evidence of any collateral t1'ansaet.ion nol.

III. 'C--

IJLIL reqI_1_i1'ed to be effected by 1'egiste'red / / '-

{LR 19%'«..'ii"E{a:iV ' ...

Ox inst1'umenL. For example, if a is executed on a white paper and is not staiiiged, it can 11eil.he1* be admitted in ev--ide1.;t:§:' used fer purpese. But.

executed on requisite: Stamp 7_4pa_pe1* ~. feLitv is not ' registeared and the exzeeutelii. 1~reI"u_Ses' 'to.c__aciﬁm,'i'L regist:ratio11, then the puieiiaser' has (:1 'to ﬁle a suit tbr spe<:ii_"1c pe1'I_oi*:11a1s.ce;VVe.a4;;_1d Ij;--:lyl on L. the we deed, '~--._e'ven titzoueh it-. was not 1'egiste1'ed, as evideiiee of tl1e'«...:oi1tJ'at}:t for sale. Thus, thou'g1_1 both Section 34ofStamp Act (eo1'1'espo1itiing_ Lo :.j_'Seet.io11"l35 of the Indian Stamp Act) and Section. "49~.o1'~__the Registration Acitﬂjoiii "Ioeing received as evicienize, t_l1e:;b.a'1' is"abso1ufte under Stamp Act:

.4tm¥1'5$§='.dﬁilﬁili..dlisi-3'ift'ﬁ11d'Hiiﬁllally is paid) and 5 the"¥ger'is.nei;absolute under Registration Act."

" 34 of the Iieieiataka ' StaI1tfpAAfteL"i1?1e:.-e is a bar for a docLi111e11t. being '- reeeive;i.iI1--~ ._eiricle11ce and the same is absolute uzness 1(.1eJf1t"_';ii_= d_l__;l_..y and penalty is paid. 'i'herefore',- for any purpose, the document wi1ieh__is;nui, duly siamped is iiladinissible in evidence. I decline to accept the contention of '<._tl'1e learned counsel for the petitioner. The V 9' order passed by the trial Court: is in i --- aeco1'da11ce with law and I ﬁnd no justifiable ' , }grou11r:'1s to interi'e1"e with the eanie."

.13: ..1"t~.~h; is not in dispute that the mortgage deed in l'a:q'ueusLio11 has not been drawn on the stipulated stamp

--"1lJa1Je1' and has not been registered. The averments made in the "leii... shows tJ.=i:--.=.L LIL. doetazlauzii _11 t Le.:t.ion 1s me1't.gage deed, 1'elal:ions.'uip 'uet,ween the u at. 0 \.

Illortgagor and Iuortgagcztz. The 1'<-zlief in the claimed only on the basis of the 1'ecit:{1l s[cQvéi'1ai1'LS'»4 uolliaincd in the deed in quea-t:i()'11.~. 'I 'h¢:_.dt5(;;.1i11t:j.1t --i11 ' (_;Q,.:s1,it_)1; Leis not. been sougn {Q bt_: 111adeM mat: 1'e)i'~..

__..n--« .... .-1 -.-._._--..._.- 11...--. 4... .....-4 cum: LUIIHLCIHJ pmpubc u1.11.§.':1yt.11u11 - L Euvv. up uu.

E u I f L1'a11sacl.io1a. Issue ,N(;\,_1, is""baé:cd""-u_11 t.l1<§"dOcmucI1L in qutzstion only. Since the :s:1[iL"e§1a=1.iJ.._i1' .ni§2 ii_1a:scd t:11ti1'c:1y 011 the doc:Lu11e1;~i.'i3u I?.1uci:sLi¢;1:,~': t1'1c:"sa111¢_.i>£11u1oL be admitted t.;t_:11-s.a_L¢.*.1':;z_1 In 11*;

1.--- Just: as ailcgegi. "1'iier€: is £40 g:L:i.iatc1'a1""pmpusc 'Lu be acisieveci in the 111aLLer. "t.1_1«_é~.cirt:u1nsLanct:s, the a1'gu.meni.

advgmmgd Em: Ieaﬁlctl Counsel appc:a1'i11g {'01: the '1)Vt:i;i!.i.ui'-.it':1' dcviiid of Inerit. The trial Court. is thus T1: 1'ﬁ4-a-tn: gr L111': i£.'l\&) 1235:

4"=*"'*w' in ggaeea-:§1:§,; L1- impug;-31.1 0111.,-1' 1.191-ding Lhal. |.h_.

deed i:-.; i1:a&n1issibic in evidczncc.

v .11.:

above meniiuneti dccisiums, with regard to the adluissibility of the documclll even for collateral purpose and also in View the provisions of I{an1a1.aka Stamp Act, \~/~ /M E;

the decisions (supra) cited by lcazmcd Coulistéi' 'pt:LiLio11t:1', have no application.

15. For the foregoing discussiéin amid} 1'easO1i's,' "I :'Vz1p=;;1DL find any juiisdicliunal <:1'm1" --3.3.1' 111a1..<_:1'i:r1l i1iégaiiL_y, navmg.

been colnmittcd by _th(-: pa-Vissiiig Lhc Writ pt;Li'i;i§:)1:i'iS;=dC$iDi€l '0l'i"1i1_'i:1i_I_._,V:f 'fails and is lumsby 's-nisse::dj "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court