Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Trial Court directing impounding of an agreement of sale (Ex.P1) for collection of stamp duty and penalty after the document had already been admitted in evidence. The petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 03.04.2008, under which the first respondent agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.6,00,000/-. The entire sale consideration was stated to be paid on the date of execution, and possession was delivered under an irrevocable Special Power of Attorney. During the pendency of the suit, the property was conveyed to the second respondent, who was subsequently impleaded. The agreement of sale was admitted in evidence as Ex.P1 without any objection from either defendant. About ten months later, the second defendant filed an application under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 seeking to prevent acting upon Ex.P1 on the ground of insufficient stamping. When the Trial Court did not pass any order, the second defendant filed a revision before the District Court under Section 58 of the Act. The District Court allowed the revision and directed the Trial Court to decide the application. The Trial Court then passed the impugned order holding that it had ample power to impound even after admission. The petitioner contended before the High Court that once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, its admissibility on the ground of insufficient stamp could not be questioned later. It was further argued that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision at the instance of a private party because Section 58 permits revision only suo motu by the court or on an application by the Deputy Commissioner, and only if the Trial Court had made an order admitting the instrument as duly stamped or on payment of duty. The respondent argued that the power to impound is distinct from admissibility and that the District Court had rightly exercised revisional power. The High Court analyzed the statutory framework of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, particularly Sections 33, 34, and 58. It held that the duty to examine and impound an instrument under Section 33 arises at the time of production, and once the instrument is admitted without objection, the power to impound is exhausted. Section 34 creates an embargo on admitting insufficiently stamped instruments, but if the court admits the instrument without objection, the embargo is lifted and cannot be re‑invoked. The revisional power under Section 58 can be invoked only in the specific circumstances mentioned and only by the court or the Deputy Commissioner, not by a private litigant. The High Court concluded that the Trial Court's order was without jurisdiction and the District Court's revision was not maintainable. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Stamp Act - Impounding of Instruments - Time of Exercise - Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Sections 33, 34 - The power to impound an instrument for insufficient stamp under Section 33 arises at the time the instrument is produced before the impounding officer and must be exercised then. Once the document is admitted in evidence without objection, the court cannot later impound it on the ground of insufficient stamp because the embargo of Section 34 is no longer applicable. Held, the trial court's order directing impounding after the document had been admitted as Ex.P1 was illegal and without jurisdiction. (Paras 33-47) B) Stamp Act - Revision under Section 58 - Locus Standi and Preconditions - Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Section 58 - Revision under Section 58 can be exercised only if the court had passed an order admitting an instrument as duly stamped, not requiring stamp, or upon payment of duty and penalty. Additionally, the revisional power can be invoked only by the court suo motu or by the Deputy Commissioner, not by a private party to the suit. The District Court erred in entertaining a revision at the instance of the second defendant when no such order as specified in Section 58 had been passed by the trial court and the revision was not filed by the competent authority. Held, the District Court's direction was without jurisdiction. (Paras 12-14, 37-39, 48-49) C) Evidence - Admission of Document - Waiver of Stamp Objection - Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Sections 33, 34 read with Supreme Court decision in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana - Once a document is tendered and admitted in evidence without any objection as to insufficient stamp, the question of its admissibility on that ground stands concluded and cannot be raised at any later stage. The Trial Court cannot exercise power under Section 33 to impound the document after its admission. (Paras 45-46)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court could direct impounding of a document already admitted in evidence without objection, and whether the revision under Section 58 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was maintainable at the instance of a private party.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No. XIV in O.S. No.131/2012 was quashed. The High Court held that once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, its admissibility on stamp grounds cannot be challenged later; the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to impound the document after admission. The District Court's revision at the instance of a private party was without jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Once a document is admitted in evidence without objection
- its admissibility on the ground of insufficient stamp cannot be questioned later
- The power to impound under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act
- 1957 is to be exercised at the time of production
- Section 58 revision cannot be invoked by a private party
- but only by the court suo motu or on application by the Deputy Commissioner
- Sections 33 and 34 operate at the stage of production and admission
- and once the document is admitted without objection
- the embargo under Section 34 no longer applies
