A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE point that falls for determination in this revision is, whether a document which requires to be stamped under S. 35 of the Stamp Act but not stamped, and is marked in evidence, could be refused to be acted upon by the court in view of S. 36 of the Stamp Act.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts in brief which led to this revision are: The respondent-Bank filed a suit against the defendants, petitioners herein, for the recovery of a debt due under an equitable mortgage. During the course of trial when D. W. 1 who is the 1st defendant, was under examination, a document said to be an agreement of partition was got produced through him and the same was marked as Ex. B-2. Thereafter, it was objected to by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the document required registration and that, unless stamp duty and penalty was paid, the document is not admissible in evidence. Before commencing cross-examination, the learned counsel again raised the objection to the marking of Ex. B-2. Then the learned counsel for the defendants contended that when once a document was marked and admitted, the question of levying stamp duty and penalty did not arise. The Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document