Karnataka High Court
Ramanna Yallappa Dharwad vs Nagappa Doddafakkirappa ... on 25 October, 2013
Author: Dilip B Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B. Bhosale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
WRIT PETITION No. 65589/2009 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
RAMANNA YALLAPPA DHARWAD
AGE 46 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. CHIKKALINGADALLI
TQ. & DIST. HAVERI
BY G.P.A HOLDER HANMANTHAPPA
S/O. YALLAPPA DHARWAD .
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI N. P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
NAGAPPA DODDAFAKKIRAPPA
MANNAMMANAVAR
AGE 59 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIKKALINGADALLI
TQ. & DIST. HAVERI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR FOR SRI F. V. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET 2 ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND C.J.M., HAVERI DATED 7/9/09, PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.48/1996 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.4. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
PC :
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.09.2009 passed by Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Haveri on an application bearing I.A. No.IV, whereby the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. The application was filed by the petitioner under sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for seeking impounding of the agreement of sale dated 22.05.1995 on the ground that it was not duly stamped.
2. The Court below for the reasons recorded in the order rejected the application. It appears from the order and the other material placed before this Court the suit was filed in July 1996. In June 2003 "no W.S." order was passed and in November 2004 plaintiff's evidence was recorded in which the 3 agreement of sale dated 22.05.1995 was admitted in evidence and was exhibited as P-1. Thereafter several stages of the proceedings were crossed and on 11.04.2008 the petitioner filed application seeking impounding of the agreement as was not properly stamped. It is in this backdrop, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that merely because the agreement was admitted in evidence and marked as Ex.P-1 cannot be a ground for not impounding the document if it was not properly stamped.
3. I have perused the provisions contained in Sections 34, 35 and 58 of the Act. Section 35 of the Act clearly provides that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not except as provided in Section 58 be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. This Court in K. Amarnath v. Smt. Puttamma, 2000(4) Kar.L.J. 55 had an occasion to deal with the provisions contained in Sections 34 and 35. The learned Judge (R.V. Raveendran, J.) in paragraph 10 of the report observed thus: 4
"The Court should not depend on objections of the other Counsel before considering whether the document is admissible in evidence or not. Section 33 of the Stamp Act casts a duty on the Court to examine the document to find out whether it is duly stamped or not, irrespective of the fact whether an objection to its marking is raised or not. It should be borne in mind that once a document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be called in question thereafter on the ground that it was not duly stamped. Once the Court admits a document even wrongly, such admission becomes final and cannot be reopened. Hence, the need for diligence not only on the part of the opposite Counsel, but also on the part of the Court having regard to the statutory obligation under Section 33 of Karnataka Stamp Act."
4. Similarly the Supreme Court in Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1655 also had an occasion to deal with similar provisions in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 wherein the Supreme Court observed, where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the 5 document is tendered in evidence. Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. It is in this backdrop, I am of the opinion that the Court below has considered the question raised by the petitioner by filing application bearing (I.A. No.IV) in proper perspective and has rightly rejected the same. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed. No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE hnm/-