Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, defendant No.1 in a suit filed by Vijaya Bank for recovery of money, challenged the trial court's order dated 19.04.2012 declining to impound three documents (Ex.P6 - declaration and indemnity, Ex.P7 - letter evidencing deposit of title deeds, and Ex.P9 - letter of guarantee) under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-bank, and the defendants filed a written statement contesting the claim. Issues were framed, and the case was posted for plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff examined PW1, through whom the documents were marked as exhibits. The defendants did not cross-examine PW1, and his evidence was closed. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed several applications, including I.A.10 under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, requesting the court to impound the documents alleging they were insufficiently stamped. The trial court dismissed I.A.10, holding that the objection regarding stamp duty should have been raised at the time of marking of documents, and since no objection was taken then, the court was not bound to impound. The High Court upheld this reasoning, observing that the proper stage to raise such objection is when the document is tendered in evidence. Once marked without objection, the party cannot later seek impounding as a matter of right. The court has discretion to impound even after marking, but it is not mandatory. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Stamp Act - Impounding of Documents - Section 34 Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Belated Objection - The defendant filed an application under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 to impound three documents (Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P9) after they were already marked as exhibits without any objection at the time of marking. The trial court declined to impound. The High Court held that the objection regarding insufficient stamp duty must be raised at the time of marking of documents; if no objection is taken then, the court is not bound to impound later. The court has discretion to impound even after marking, but it is not mandatory. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Evidence - Marking of Documents - Objection to Admissibility - The proper stage to raise objection regarding stamp duty is when the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked. Once marked without objection, the party cannot later seek impounding under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 as a matter of right. (Paras 5-8) C) Stamp Act - Section 34 - Scope - Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence unless it is duly stamped. However, if the instrument is already admitted in evidence without objection, the court is not bound to impound it subsequently. The provision does not mandate impounding after marking without objection. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was bound to impound and levy duty and penalty on documents under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 when the documents were already marked as exhibits without any objection at the time of marking, and the application for impounding was filed belatedly after the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order declining to impound the documents. The court held that the objection regarding stamp duty must be raised at the time of marking of documents; if no objection is taken then, the court is not bound to impound later. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Stamp duty objection must be raised at time of marking documents
- Section 34 Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 does not require impounding after marking without objection
- Court has discretion to impound even after marking but not mandatory
- Objection to stamp duty cannot be raised belatedly after evidence is closed
