Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri M. Surendra Rao, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 04-11-2016 and 15-11-2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, in O.S.No.411/2015. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit, and the respondents were the defendants. During the trial, the first defendant (respondent No.1) marked a document as Ex.D-3 (Annexure F) in his evidence. The petitioner objected to the marking of the document on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. The trial court overruled the objection and allowed the document to be marked. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the orders. The High Court examined the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, particularly Sections 35 and 36. Section 35 prohibits the admission of any instrument chargeable with duty unless it is duly stamped. Section 36 provides that once a document is admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be questioned except as provided by the Act. However, the court held that the bar under Section 35 is absolute and cannot be circumvented by marking a document subject to objection. The court noted that the document Ex.D-3 was insufficiently stamped and therefore could not be admitted in evidence for any purpose. The trial court's orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The court also clarified that the petitioner's objection to the admissibility of the document could be raised at any stage, and the trial court should have considered the same before marking the document.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Evidence - Admissibility of Documents - Section 35 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - The court held that a document which is insufficiently stamped cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose, including collateral purposes, as per Section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The trial court erred in marking Ex.D-3 which was insufficiently stamped, and the order was quashed. (Paras 5-10) B) Civil Procedure - Evidence - Objection to Admissibility - Section 36 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - The court held that an objection to the admissibility of a document on the ground of insufficient stamp duty can be raised at any stage, even after the document has been marked subject to objection. The trial court's discretion under Section 36 is not absolute and cannot override the bar under Section 35. (Paras 7-9) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash the trial court's orders dated 04-11-2016 and 15-11-2016, as the trial court had acted in excess of its jurisdiction by admitting an insufficiently stamped document. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a document which is insufficiently stamped can be admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit in a civil suit, and whether the trial court's order marking such document is liable to be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 04-11-2016 and 15-11-2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, in O.S.No.411/2015 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Document insufficiently stamped cannot be admitted in evidence
- Objection to admissibility can be raised at any stage
- Section 35 of Karnataka Stamp Act
- 1957 bars admission of unstamped/insufficiently stamped instruments
- Trial court's discretion under Section 36 of Karnataka Stamp Act
- 1957 is limited once document is marked subject to objection
