Objection as to admissibility of a unregistered relinquishment deed in a suit for declaration of title and injunction - Trial marked the document and directed to send the same to District Collector for Stamp duty - Their Lordships of High court held that marking the document and sending the same for stamp duty is not incorrect as upheld by Apex court that subject to such objections to be decided on the last stage in the final Judgment, a document can be received and marked - -2015 Karnataka (2013)msklawreports

Respondents 1 & 2 filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. During the pendency of the suit the respondents sought to file an unregistered partition deed which was insufficiently stamped. 
The petitioner- defendant No.1 objected for the same. The trial Court by the impugned order permitted the plaintiff to mark the unregistered relinquishment deed and directed the office to send the document to the District Collector, Chamarajanagar, to assess the deficit stamp duty. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

As upheld by Apex court
whenever an objection is raised regarding the admission of any document the trial Court l shall take note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case and subject to such objections to be decided on the last stage in the final Judgment. If the Court finds that the final stage of the objections so raised is sustainable, the court can keep such evidence excluded from consideration."
Under these circumstances, it would be just and proper to follow the order passed by the Supreme Court. Therefore the order permitting the plaintiff to mark the unregistered relinquishment deed is sustained. However, the objections raised by the petitioner, would necessarily have to be decided by the trial Court at the final conclusion of the suit in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. So far as the objections regarding deficit stamp duty is concerned, that portion of the order referring the document to the District Collector is sustained.-2015 Karnataka (2013)msklawreports


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.