IN ‘I’H}3 HIGH comm’ OF’ K_ARNA’I’AKA AT BANGALORE
If)A”I_’EI3 THIS THE 7% DAY OF JANUARY’
BEFORE M M
THE HONBLE E\riR.JUSTIC}3-EQ;§X?./I AM<jf«i}!§}§i–'AQ§i':3i3Y 'V
WRIT PETITION No. 41 1743010 (Gm-%¢PC)V M'
§3.{a'I.'w1§:£«:N': 'V V V. 2
SM-"1". \z'§LJAYAi…AK.S§–£M'IV ,
w/0. N. B. JACEANNA'I"Tf4?';Sf£'E"§"71'
AGED macaw' 6% YEARS '
R/A. NEZRELEKEZRE V1I,IJA{_}F_:~._
M'EDIGES§€{I M0_13L:_ I _ –
MADEVEUGIRI ‘:’A1;a;;:’ 2:
‘i'{;’MKUIR
=’ …§-‘E§’I’I’I.’IONEZ}:'{
(BY SR1″ §*iAE~1.ES}§ v . 2},r)”§f;v}.’ ~ V
AND: 1 T .
SRE %\§A!’}ARA§” :3, ‘
33/0. E§I~2A’?PAV ‘ .
AGED AB OUT 44. 5?;-:A1%:.s
CL(;)’}’E-1 _MIa:R£: 1′–»:AN’;.$5
l:~I,{)i’§.AE{£?,R¥:; F£EE:I3E’G.F.S§*’-E1 E’-{QBLE
” .MA;E)H’U€:viR£ fmmK
» Vf§”E;TE\{T’}{UI5~2:. :;4:v:V3′;z’R_1«::*z*
, . . R.E3SP€}N’E3EN’l.”‘
.1’. ES FELIEEE §_ENE}I§R j5°a?{“}’I(3§,i’*3E*3 22%? Aifxfi} 22′? OF
‘I”‘H£*£ C’QN33’E”‘I’Y[J’FI()N C”)? INQEA PRAYIN€Zw TO $E3’i’ ASIDEC TEEIEZ
{}I£I3E2.§{ E31′. /’1.0/2(}1.G§ PASSEI3 BY ‘I”H§-S SEZN10¥i Civil, JUDGE
V ‘A%’L;}MI7{Tf. 53!!’ Ms.’-‘;Z)f”I.{.§’€}I§{§, IN €’).Ei§.N{}.8Z-3/()6 ON §.5X.§’€{).6 ‘UI’Jf)f§R
V’ .€I_)I’~1.I3§EiR 13 RUL-Ii: ‘>1 I5’;/W” S§Z(I.1E31 OF CFC. ‘\z”§T7)E ;’¥’xN?\EE§Z>{.:3’a ii:
.3″
M} .,
” ?e~,:*r$.V§-gred 2}.pf3€a1″£iIi”i(Z’€’f, reésisaiiéééi the suit’. by fiiirzg ‘WI’iT:'[f3i1’i
{f2{3E\ESZ§Q[_3E1\2’1’E.,Y mmw “I'”HEi A.I>§>;,.1<:A'.1'I:\z {Laws} EJNDEZR
O¥{DI~ZR :3 RUI.,Ii 4 OF (EMT, ON 11% FIE,-IE2 cm ‘.1’2~-15;’. i¥”A(Z’FS 8:
C:R(:LJMs’1’AN<:I«:$ ore' -"1:*1~I;£: CASE. ea: IDIRECT -'1'1~H«: (','{")UR'§T –:::«£:'1.,<)::I~J_:3HT1«~1'£~:
ism.-'1}: AND ETC.
THIS w_P. 153 COMING ON §«’«:>§«2 I>RL,HL:.A;2.:_;’\i;%.*yr,
‘I”‘HI:3 c::::>:jm MADE: ‘f’H}E<3 3«'w1N<_:: _ _
oRDE3»_;
The rejection of p121ir1t1’f:f’s I .A.N<_3.6 L11 é<;_i{3'A1*'v£3r{is:i*"v1'S
Ruie 4 CPC to (:<)n.$idef"'zfhe H the'
ciocument dated 9/ ix by order
cit. 25/10/2010 in Senior Civil
7'5
6*:
Juclge 81 JMF”(:”:;j[.L§xIadhu mi is question in this
2.’ fil;’)C”‘{‘.i.J[LiC’}”£1E”.’i”.V i1′).’:§{‘:.}’,”f’.’L;f.€3Ci O.S.i\§0.83/O6 arraigning
‘thsij réS.§:><}n§%3z2.t. hetfsiin 2159 11138 iicfefidazii; ':0 :*€x:0vei*
. §}Z},SS€?S'SiQH .éiIv1(i fin" E1.E'I"€::¥.I"E:3 of E"€I'1i1 of Rs.46.{)OO _/ — as also
" §:*-de€§.i%,.~*etry GE’ p<:ssse:.:ssi0:'1. "£'ha=% etiefezzdazat, on IEOfLLi(E€i,
5
4 ‘xx
“M.
DJ
si:eit’.en1£3m:. In {the premisse of pieadings of paiiies, the
trial Ccaurt fireimcd issssues and the parties eni.erm,i’—-,tri2i1,
After the <:1s1.:re of piaintifi’ €’v”‘.idfi’fI1(?(‘3, iihjf,
eniiereci upon his evzidemteg \7V}1€I}C€f pjr:”‘-..V28:f”1/12030’i’
Introduced 8 ci0cume:2i:s mairktgcl uné:;pp_oe§ed.,_V €1E§~,VE’:}§i:I)}
to D8, as neither the pei:i*;_i_o11eri’—:10; heii,vé0L:’r1,§ée£°’.vs,?eré’VVL
preseifli before c0urt;. ‘I’1″1<'3"'Vi'fiétitionééi'..€5I1–v'2'f;.{11/ 2010
flied 1.A.No.6 L3Ud€T'Qi*'d€f ri-3-consider
the admissibiiity of 2002 marked
as Ex.D1 L
me ;3~.re1*:1iSe °i1f_1:}21t.f " v:£f;-vwas iiisufficiently
ifiijiduiided and direction be
iss'ue€l_t,é;i1'i5:_ paiy deficit stainp duty and
pena41iy.'–__ Pi(;cEi:;iiiigg»~ fhe pf3i'if,iOf.1(3II". the documem:
'b€i§'1f§ an iiz1rQgis'ii.er€%d nioriigeiger deed e1ii<-:ged.iy exectuteci
– «byi::hé’arei”:gi<)r$ ii'i"'{ii:1e (if im: pei:ii:i<mer in favoiii' of the
V ?i'{3'f"-:*~:'£pfg'}"1}(i€'.?fi'iijfifiéiffiildélilii. <:v<-3:12-mimii i'h2:'{: p<):%;sessia.n (if
7'f'h€i'»'i.1'Iii}Iil€5}}?7:é'}ii?§fiV€3' pr~:)p<~3rt,y was; cieiiv<'3r'€:Ci to $316 d€:fe1'ida.I1'é;.
21S5'"— 3: .-_jf:"i(i:r*Egg21g@e in p{}SS€SSit:)I'1,, €11gI'(}SS€€i on stamp
gm
pEip(;'/I.' of v'a_1u.e Rs.10{3/~. Ii. was ihrs specrific case: of the
petitivzmer that: the d:gi§s’i:ered
nz0:”t.gage deed at:{:1’a(:t,ed the m.c:id<~3ncte of S«t:a..fn1.g:§' "f§¥:1€.j_,f
undeif Ar$;.34[a) of the Karr1ai;.21ka Si:a:t11pV "i:c; ::
short: 'Act'.
8. That application w as «b3?
ste1t,en1eI1t. of objections (;f–v.,_/f}”2*:e re.spQf1’€§e}:at,} C:ié1″é:r’1cia1I1t
1’nt_c3ra11ia CT{)I1t€I1C§iHg,’€}:.g1{. Ordéf E2116 4 ii-i”in’éV1pp1icabIe
and the abS(~:I1c:e of the c0’u’tiséIV211f,_«tfi’é_’;t§Ii1.:3 of marking of
the d0cL£m§rr1i’:s{_’~is {moi-~21″«.gfoiun_c1_7t0 COI’}Sid€’I’ the
admi::;sibiIif.yvL’:3f_«i:i’i.4f: dQCt;_n1er_:t. The Court. beiow having
frank:-d.¢21 .p0i13t: ‘fd:1_%v€iaIjSid€;ra1:i0n, observetd that BIx.D1,
the n’mVi’Ltg;§é1g;e2 ‘ .dé:{:€,E~,…_”..’L’ when marked in evidence
L111§;{ppa:.setd cm. /2010, the Q11;-sjsiiion <31" a.dmissibi1i'i,y'
;c::1;*§2€3:’§é§§i§% 911 She pmrzzisse i:ha%’, ii: was
_ in$’L;ffi.c:i_€::1iI}:g_V smmpeci, at a, izzter ssmge of the
§
‘?-?w.,/ ‘w
;}:°o€:€3c;%Cii:i”§£§;”§-9;, i=i.55 §;mp<;ér:11.issi.bic: f0%1owi:r1gg the dt3CiSi(}I1 {if
{hi-is cauri. I"{?p(}I'i'€?C.1 in ILR 200'? KAR 2786 emd
a.Ccz*cii1’1gEy by the erecier imp’L1g;:aeci. I’€j€tCf.f”3ii~- the
appitcatzioal.
4. Although 1ea.r’1:1ed Couiasd t'()1′”.V__'{.’f1’£;z.
cxontezadss that Sec:t.ior1s 38 to 3?’ of t:Ifie;’11’aci:’*}::a_sts
on {he court to €3X8.IT]i1’1€ d0(:Lu_11émt oxg<§–r
of st.a.mp d'L1t.y, before its a'{fI113'iss_i():1 'i1T2 "_Vé\si:<:1e f§r:e, E am
ncyt impresged by say because;
the Apex Cotlrt. in KASB-INfi1′{‘}ISA:h’Y;AMOSA KABAIJI,
ETC. vs. KABADI, ETC.
1’epor.€:ed §.–96~1 SC 1077 at paragraph 23
c)bser\?£_:d’t,h1.:s§:’ _ ” __
“X X . X T7f?if:,.«:71’E;§t:;1II1<:':1?ts:» were adn1ii'.i:ed in
— ..€3\-=’i.d€4fi.xC€ Eay’ the f1″i:;1E Court and £10 quc3si:i(>n
V sjgif :;-1dm’i$s:§i”r;*%§§–«3′ 01′ t:h{}ss% <i<3<:ument$ {jam be
-:f_{;%3§-;a1iVéE{§___;1§: 21 §;»,1i;€r 3é:z1g;§€: 0? the Emit, or *;’;:1
A }2:;§p.¢:_;11.:;’g’s’§2e Sc;’:<:.37, Si:aI11p.Aci.]",
3:
Erwwmmwy,
-‘K.
_(-3,
A Eearzleci ssizlggie Judge of this court: in N. S.
LAKSRMAIAH SETTY VS. R. GOVINI)A?PA I’fZ’p()711;J{‘:f3r(“3 in
1964(2) MYSORE 1…}. 145, wmze {:or1sidea1*’iI1g_igiié
of Secs. 33 to 3”? of the Karnataka St:21::};5’ficfi.; =h”21{ri’:’:3
1’é:_2§ard 1:0 21 line 0f1″ep0::”1ied opfmiorjs’ ;~:)J’«_i4i”§’1s.__§:’z,:Ijt”égnéi’
tihat. of the Apex Court, observed t’1<111s–:
"It is also clear i'rom"V'i:;h:é' C1ec:ié'§i'ar'1VL<§*Vé1i1;é:§azdy
cited above, that .3v'heFé"tf1Léa' j'cV( §u.'1j"t faiA1'§"t.0"tvake
action under .do<tum(-mt
in evidencc, 0}3€1'21i",iO¥l
subjecfé :22' prowdr-rd in
'i's~uti§at so far as the
Zvipartieéw if}: '"-2:11":-3 " C()I1Cf£'I'I1€d, the action
of the d0:1Ax::1:;~–:my s~:.ubseq1.1<:ni; s1;age of the S'E1it
,Q1*«.+j::.% "az}y appeai or rev.is1'<m. 21ri:3i;r1g there
that: 50 fax.' as iihfi i11t.€resi.s Gf
;:<3':H§:ri:w'Lij& are (_1()I1C€'I'I1€d, f,h€-3}? are sc::»t;1gh{i {:9 bis
" p_fote(:t,<3;c::.58 :1z’1de:* which the
pi}V¥€’i” £19 <1ei:ern1i:1e and éewztlare:-3: thé: pmper
Q'
-3-
duty and penaity payable in 1’€Spe(,’.i1 of H16?
iI1st.1’un1e;1t:s5 is vest’.<:d in the court'. of 3.ppea1..__
or 1'ei"erenn:es anti 110%. in the 1’igi1.1ai (:ou’rt’._,v »
is. ciear E’h<51'e_fo:{'e that once S3035 » A'
imio p€~:.r21t.i()n, the origilaai c:o111*t_iQ§e:f;
power not merely to r’ef’u’iév.2*«
express or implied, to rc~:C €.ixre:’_’_’th’é
in evidencte, but 21130’9tc;«–_.§evy aIijI si;21fi§fJ..¢jdI,1§y
or pssnaity in respect cf insi,I’£1:;11′ é11€i”. V
5. in vs; SUSHIL
KUMAR AGARWAL Atf.e}”> £);r1:e cV1. ii:;1 gm%%%-2.907 saw 234,
the Apex ;_i.oi’.i{:éf(i**””‘0n facts that a
cieve1fi§prI1é:1i’1:1ffagreéén;–t%iii’. v_cit. _– 16/ 1/ 1995 was exhibited
xvithotit £1213? 0i3j(}¢ti_iii1._:TVi’;11′,.–{.he part of the appellant. on
1?/’ 2 / 2OVG;.’3,V,% éhgé pai’.t5i{~’s;._’-7i1.21v§:11g ae:1d::<:€d their rfzspemivc
€¥'§fj§.QI3(i€' <)11V"*16/2/2-Z005 and when the mexfier was-;
p{§S§1€:{§' '§3.T}f~¢;i:'§§'E.2.En€%11i.S on tbs: sgzzéé: an :2;-'hi<:h daiie tbs
:1pp<;:1E}a:;t.-§'i1:2:§;.um E1I3p1i[fiE1ti(}r1$g one-3. ;fe31" .:f{:ca_Ei.i:1_g; the
€3:*Ci'Cr X2003 and arlotihssr is send the d0cum<3m:
to the Collector for .irnpm1:_1cimg I':.he;'e::m in terms of
S'ut: any 0bje:c:t:ion a11cI…….1i}1_e’Tgrfivzll
eont.i;1ueci. ii. was held that OIECE3 the_d’Qe1::f:’1e:1t3 is’ 9′
marked in ev:’.de:1ee, the ::<)3;.¥1;1%~,1A-iw iv
re0per1i.:1g the same. V ' . VV . V
6. So also is the V. J. as
he then Was, in K.
reported in 2090 that once
a Cannot be called
in t_iv1ve g’1*0L1.r1d that it was not
duly .x,2Qc>rds, Qnce the court: admits a
d<)c:u.r:.1e11't;;-«aevezz 1§J14(2.;ig§1;?, saueh admission beeomee {£11211
a11.'{%_:é{?e, E161″, zmijg an iihe part. of the eg}p:.}site
eg:-Lin3eE, b:;igiiso on the part of the Court: Ifmving regard
{:3 {he ei”,2§i_:ié23*§,f eb1igai:ion 1.EI1d(31″ 8220.83 of the AC3;’..
5 5′
3
=.-“‘=-<~" 3
.9.
‘F’. Keeping; in mind iihfif c)bserv21£.ic):1s sf this ecmrt
and that: of the Apex €202,111 in the rerpormd op.ii:’i,;:>”ns,
supra, it is izwciless to si:at:e that EX.D1, _.n_1;;e1fR’@f:i; i’:7;
evidence unopposed on 28/1/ZOEO f%..r”1a?1_
Co1.,1.1*t, 1.A.N0.8 urider Order 4;
petitioner 1:10 rectal} the s21id_:>_rder «1z12i’;<kiI1gTTTv§§,<: Cic}c:,1';.r1é:~n$:[=
on the p':'em.ise tha.i: the ci{§<:fLi111c:r1t "w_21VST–ins£;ffi<:ie:nt1y
Stamped. was justifie23;)}y rej€CteCi.–.
8. Even.’ 0’i.11er’W§_S'<:w,.V t;}f16;c1r5e1i'1%i'§'Ii*t. termed as a
mortgage deéd,$i"1O::gh t1Iii*egisté1-"£:'d—-b11t on stamp paper
va1L1<-id '.~.?1&jsewherc-3 held that for a
_;:{é[rt,y by 21 party, admissible in
€i”V.}.’§i–:f3E3C:E’ ezxrezé”ifins:;fficier1t.1y 5-st:a.mped.. H; is moi: kI1(}W11
‘ 21$ $.51. ?’1f§w_Ai;’h;_§3 dzzqtumam is pm:’p{>r:::: -1 is be pm: :13 ¥.,1:E’>€ E3};
t%¥:§b::c7iéé;r3,i:”_;i.»:;%.; 3.53 to w§:1e3;:h{:’r it is for esi’ab1ishi:1g €116
._;..
‘::21’t11:.r°c;% ¥:3§ft3.é)s\~3essi<:=I1 of the dc:;:i'<3;:";.r:ia;1t: <::v{:~r ilhff s,u,.i'éi
M,
"""*-Mzwzx
far»
schfiéduie pmper'£:y or for any <}t'm3r purp<)se and
i.h.t:*.rt3f<;)re on that': grmmszi tax). the p@t.ii:i:):1e:1' is dis<%Tii{:i:t.}.eci
to quesfiozfz the (}1."C1E'.I' (it. 28/1/2010,
um'czgis-:.t<3red nzortgage deed E1x.D1 in _t..If_1_<:_A'$..L.1i'i–:,A '~ '
In 'éihe result, }i)t';'i',iti.{)I} b_<5:i.I1gAivi1:Ti1{;;if:–.f12e:jit_».,.iS
arding1y re} eciied.