S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 7th of March, 1995 in O. S. No. 183 of 1987 holding that Ex. P. 1 in O. S. No. 324 of 1987 was inadmissible in evidence not being fully stamped and was also barred by section 17 of the Registration Act.

( 2 ) THE Trial Court mainly relied upon the decision of the Supreme court in Javerchand v Pukhraj Surana and Ettuthara Warrier v C. Kochunarayanan Menon.

( 3 ) THE Trial Court repelled the contention of the revision petitioner herein that the document Ex. P. 1 in O. S. No. 324 of 1987 had been admitted in evidence and therefore it was not open to the plaintiff in suit to challenge its admissibility. Javer Chand's case, supra, related to admissibility of a Hundi, deficit stamping of it could not be validated by payment of duty and penalty; whereas in this case, the document is alleged to be an agreement to sell. Ex. P. 1 in O. S. No. 324 of 1987 was characterised as an agreement to sell. Whether it is an outright sale deed or an agreement to sell is a matter of construction of the document. Proviso to Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act deals with the situation of the nature in question and reads as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document