Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.D.AUGUSTINE versus A.T.VARGHESE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.D.AUGUSTINE v. A.T.VARGHESE - WP(C) No. 18573 of 2006(J) [2007] RD-KL 1324 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18573 of 2006(J)

1. P.D.AUGUSTINE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. A.T.VARGHESE,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.TONY PETTAH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C) .NO.18573 OF 2006 Dated 17th January 2007

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order of First Additional Sub court, Ernakulam directing plaintiff petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty after impounding the document.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that document impounded as per order dated 12/7/2006 was admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit and after closing of the evidence and hearing the arguments learned Sub Judge, passed the order which is challenged in this petition. The order reads;

"Impound the document and recover the deficit stamp duty of 5% in every 100 rupees in the amount and penalty." Section 33 of Kerala Stamp Act empowers the court at the time when document is sought to be admitted in evidence to decide the question whether the instrument 2 is sufficiently stamped or not. If the court finds that instrument is not sufficiently stamped, it is to be impounded. Section 37 provides how to proceed with an instrument which is impounded. If the person pays the requisite deficit stamp duty and penalty, even though the document is not stamped or not sufficiently stamped, it is to be admitted in evidence and if not, the original instrument impounded shall be sent to District Collector for proceeding as provided under Section 39 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Section 35 mandates that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not except as provided in Section 59, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Therefore, if the document has been admitted in evidence, then thereafter learned Sub Judge is not competent to impound the document and direct the party to pay deficit stamp duty or penalty. Section 59 enables the appellate court or the revisional court to decide the sufficiency of stamp duty paid. It enables the said court to direct payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. But the same trial court cannot impound the document once admitted in 3 evidence and marked, because of embargo created under Section 35 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Order passed by learned Sub Judge directing impounding of the document which has already been admitted in evidence is therefore quashed. Writ petition is allowed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

uj.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.