A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
A. P. Laly – Appellant
Versus
Gurram Rama Rao – Respondent
Paragraph 30 emphasizes that in the absence of any evidence indicating that the trial court had made a formal decision regarding the admissibility of a document, the application filed by the defendant to de-exhibit the document remains valid and maintainable. It underscores that the plaintiff has the opportunity to pay the required stamp duty and penalty, and then request the court to admit the document in evidence. Ultimately, the court has the authority to decide whether to admit and mark the document, regardless of whether it was properly stamped initially or not.
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. She filed O.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Markapur for recovery of an amount of Rs. 18,92,000/- from the defendant. The suit was filed on the basis of a hand letter executed on 14.02.2011. The evidence of the parties was completed. During the course of evidence of PW.1, the said hand letter was marked as Ex.A1 and was treated as an agreement under Article 6(A) of Schedule I(A) of the Indian Stamp Act (for short ‘the Act’). PW.1 was cross-examined. When the case was posted for arguments on defendant’s side, the defendant filed I.A.No.490 of 2016 stating that the said document is not an agreement but it is a bond within the meaning of Section 2(5)(b) of the Act as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in B. Bhavannarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm 1996(1) ALT 917 (FB), and it is liable to be stamped under Article 13 of Schedule I(A) of the Act and not under Article 6(A) (iv) of Schedule I(A) of the Act. It was stated that it happened by inadvertence. Though the said document was marked
B. Bhavannarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm
Dokka Joganna v. Upadrasta Chayadevi
Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum
Kuppammal v. Mu. Ve. Pethanna Chetty
Mantrala Simhadri v. Palli Varalakshmi
Milkhiram (India) Private Ltd. v. Chamanlal Bros.
P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple
S. Mohan Krishna v. V. Varalakshmamma
Sadik Hussain Khan v. Hashim Ali Khan
Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal
Sree Rama Varaprasada Rice Mill v. Takurdas Topandas
Srinivasa Builders v. A. Janga Reddy (Died) per LRs
Syed Yousuf Ali v. Mohd. Yousuf
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.