High Court Karnataka High Court

T P Vijayanarasimhaiah vs Sri Govindaraju on 3 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
T P Vijayanarasimhaiah vs Sri Govindaraju on 3 April, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
,*:€:31%!fi€I~sR._'}if3*s:s'17.R¥\C;':f%.~ 572V":-:22 -----   RESPONDENT

--..f'_;jr:Q:*~:s':'1*rL;T1£;;;~;_'i~c3£* ENDIA, PRAY1:~é 27.39.1992 AS 3:21.;-'I3, RECEIVE' OF' SALE:

 CjC§NS'f{}ER§;"1'§()N as EXP4 AND THE As'3REEMEE'¥"§' .S.N{).19,°'2f)€38 among 'i"'§~}E';

_ T -':ff§:§U}2--"£ OF 'i"I~iE CEVEL Juirm": :._r§e.:;«:«2; AT §<:oRm:ru:;231:2E MAEKES A?
 .a_;;§:\eI§;<:{;§2:s:--<:: TO THE WEE? PE:TmN ETC.

_ 1 -
IR THE HIGH comm ear KARRATAKA AT BAEEGALORE  
DATE!) THIS THE am DAY' or .APRIL, 2009  7 i' " .'
among _
mm HON'3I..E MR. J::s'r:c3__5.s,._m'r_::;"  fT- 'V
wars PETITIGN No.i1124/zéfis {i%rexL¢Fi1' 3    'A
BETWEEN: 'V "  VV .

'}"'.?'VIJ13;YANARA$§MHAiAH  *  " '~'
8,'O.L&.TE PAPEGOWDA    -

Aegis ABOUT' ":0 YEARS

THOGARIQHATTA VELLAGE

HGEAVANAHALLI HOBLE

KQRATAGERE TALUK ' ._ . r  V ._ 

TUMKUR IL)iS'I"RIC'F- 5'72=1:2:   -- . 'A ' 1  ¥PE'1'I'I'EON'ER
:8? 3:2; zmmvg :<.ai%1<E:gaé; _,_.Ai)'sa"TP'€)R  V 
;%.NAC§ARAJA??A &.'A33.(3C-EKEES;-:%;i§Y'iZ3{E£%;T3?fi€?;;  '

Am):  ....    

srz: GOVIND4A:R&J.U-- V  v   '
s/o.L.,p;£'E KaNJ:GATH;;v:Ma:;AH'*.._  
AGEDABIDUT E-SCVYEAMRS  -- '  "
TBQGAREGHATTA' "{ii.LAGF; .
HOLAVANAHALLI BURL!  
KORATAGERE FALUK " A.

{V33 SEMI"; M, P.,v§?AN<.§Jfi;.._ ADV;

'n§:'$ W.1?I.'£'"vP5'Ei'1'i'Fl(3N :3 Fmslg) UNEBER Aimcag 22:2"; <3? THE



-2"

TEES WRIT ?E;'§'E'i'§QN C{}Ev'§iN{3- {DN FGR I3REL§F~AEE'EARY HEARENG
TREE?» BAY, T'!-{E CGUW? Méafifi T1-{E F'OLLO'§fINiTr:~

ORDER

The gricivanct of the petitioner in this writ: petition is t.§i:»2tj

the court below has simply ‘~ce:fta”

éocuments without considering t1Vx£:–v.vL:€:ii’.33’§€:(:t;;L.<t:<;11tec1 on the
mqmmd Stamp papcixy. N . _ .. _ .

12:. Thctigfifirith fegazfi $0 E3X.F’~3
and d0 :’ii£ji’t}3nd any substance in
the O’¥3’j€(:ti{):fi.’ féiséfi. ggsgtement to 36:11, as it is
éxecutefi Q11 requiremeifi: of payment of
!.I’.$.§I1SaCti0i1 as conveyance was not in

fdtcé the amerzdmcnt to the Stamp Act has

some w:i¥:i: e1i:=;:§£.”ga~¢::ri 61.94. 1995. As regaras £§x.i7′–¥E3, which is

a:1’Vag:’eaii1ezni.«:é$eH executed on 15.1 1. 1997, the gzievancs of

__tiié;V~%pe’i§{iQ.nef’is that, it was executed on a piain paper and not

K olzxéga paper. This aspect has not been cansidemd by the

T c<:;§i3i't"Tbe§0w. The matter thereibre requires re~c0nsi<:ie:rati0n

bfiiéith regard 1:0 the abjecrtimzs raised for marking Ex.P–S.

-3-

3. in the light of $116 abave discussion, the o.:é13.gr

passed by tbr: court below germitting marking of

titvidence, is vacated. The court beiow is divested tr} ” c(:n.3i{ié1’T~

the objcciion raised by the petjiédixcr

aémissibility ofthe documents, in the ”

sama is found to havé ‘bee:”1 rec=B;*éfis:£g§i”~vQn 31%’: p1aj,1;Vpaj5:é§f.”‘ ‘iiie
cmxrt below is €iil”t,;”?t€(i tag’ provide “‘opporti;m;i.ty_€£:o the:
mspoxfiient to have their say*”«§1ij passing any

C3I’€}.€I’,

Sd/–r
Judge

‘. 1»-{iv ‘