TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese C.R.Ps on 9-2-2009. In C.R.P. No. 168 of 2009, interim stay was granted for a limited period, which was subsequently extended for a further limited period. 5. The contesting, respondents are represented by Sri Vinod Associates, now represented by Sri Vinod Reddy. Hence all these C.R.Ps are being disposed of by this common order. 6. Sri Balasubramanyam, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that the leaned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal totally erred in dismissing the applications to send the document to an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of the signatures and another application to send the document dated 12-4-2006 to Revenue Divisional Officer for impounding and for collection of Stamp Duty and Penalty. Instead of sending the document in question to an expert for comparison and also for the purpose of impounding and further allowing an application filed by the opposite party plaintiff to reject the said document on certain grounds, also cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the document in question and would maintain that though the document is styled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a further document to be executed as and when required to be considered it would not alter the situation since the nature of the document is not in any way changed or altered and hence, the document to be taken as regular relinquishment deed and the same being unregistered and insufficiently stamped document, the learned Judge after recording the reasons came to the correct conclusion in rejecting the document as inadmissible and hence, the order under challenge, a common order, does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. The learned Counsel would also maintain that when the very document itself is inadmissible in evidence, to send such document to a hand writing expert would be a futile exercise. Hence, viewed from any angle since the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever, these C.R.Ps. are to be dismissed. Learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 8. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the document in controversy between the parties and also the records available before this Court. 9. I.A. No. 71 of 2008 is filed by the petitioners/defendants 3 and 5 for sending the document dated 12-4-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s admissible in evidence and the same can be marked as exhibit on behalf of the defendants 3 and 5 through the evidence of the defendant No. 3. 2. Whether the document dated 12-04-2006 filed by the defendants 3 and 5 can be sent to hand writing expert for comparison of the disputed signatures of the plaintiff on the document with that of admitted signatures of the plaintiff. 3. Whether the document dated can be sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal for levying and for collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty on the document. 4. To what relief. 15.The learned Judge after referring to the recitals of the document in question and also further referring to several decisions after recording elaborate reasons allowed I.A. No. 78 of 2008 and dismissed I.A. No. 100 of 2008 and I.A. No. 71 of 2008. Aggrieved by the same the present C.R.Ps had been preferred. 16.The recitals of the document in controversy are as hereunder: [Telugu Matter. (Omitted)] 17. It is no doubt true that there is a recital relating to the registration of the document on demand made for the registration. Elaborate submissions had been made on the strength of this recital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught to be admitted only for a collateral purpose. The learned Judge also further observed that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, to receive such a document which requires registration to be used for a collateral purpose. However, under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act there is an absolute prohibition unless the requirements of the proviso to that Section are fulfilled. 23. In Shaik Khadaru Masthan v. Sayyed Fathimun Bee: 2007 (6) ALT 220 : 2007 (6) ALD 482, the learned Judge observed at Para 10 as under: The document in question has been placed on record along with the material papers. It is an unregistered and unstamped document. The recitals of the document are explicit that the mother of the plaintiff gifted the property under the document. When once the gift of immovable property worth more than ₹ 100/- is evidenced by a document it attracts Section 17 of the Registration Act. The same issue fell for consideration before a Single Judge of this Court in Ranga Reddy v. Sadhu Padamma and Ors. (supra), decision, wherein it has been held that an unregistered gift deed effecting Immovable property cannot be admitted in evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is the document on which the suit was instituted. In other words, if this document was not available to the plaintiffs, there could not have been either any suit of the present nature or the nature of the suit would have been something else. Therefore, when this document is the very foundation for institution of the suit, such a document has to be more carefully dealt with before arriving at a conclusion as to whether the same is admissible or not. From the above, it could be seen that the defect of the document, either unstamped or insufficiently stamped, can be cured either by the Court by impounding and levying the duty along with penalty of its own or if the party to the suit require the document to be sent to an authorized officer under the Stamp Act i.e., the Collector for levying the duty along with penalty to send the document to such officer. Therefore, this defect can otherwise be called as 'curable defect'. Consequently the admission of such a defective document under the Stamp Act depends much upon the steps taken by the Court or the person who tries to introduce the document in order to mark the same in the evidence. To put it in a different way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof put forward is irregular or insufficient, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. A party cannot lie by until this case comes before a Court of Appeal and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof. 33. In Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Ors. v. Yelamarti Satyam and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 1865, it was held that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof. 34. In Nori Srirama Sastri v. Nori Lakshmidevamma and Ors. AIR 1957 A.P. 60, it was held by the learned Judge of this Court that it is the duty of a Judge to decide the question as to the admissibility of the documents objected to by a party when the objection is raised. He ought not to mark them tentatively and reserve the question of the admissibility for arguments at the final stage. If the Judge tentatively marks the documents, the High Court will set aside the order in revision. 35. In the light of the clear language of Order 13 Rules 3 and 6 of the Code referred to supra, the order made by the learned Judge all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
