Dismissed

Babu v. Sarala Kumari

Kerala HC1 Mar 2017OP(C)/81/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenging a lower court order impounding mortgage deed and contract documents for being insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order based on the legal position that such documents, while accepted for collateral purposes, do not require acceptance in evidence for the res judicata they confer.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the lower court order was dismissed.

Babu Vs Sarala Kumari — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 81 of 2014 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS.NO.793/2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26.11.2013.

¶7

PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

BABU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSS, RESIDENT AT TVR A 32,TC 8/650,THIRUMALA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND NOW RESIDING AT POST BOX NO 8922,ABU DHABI SHIP BUILDING, ABU DHABI , UAE, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND WIFE SUMA JOSE K, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT TVR-A-32,TC/8/650,THIRUMALA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

SUMA JOSE K., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.BABU, RESIDING AT TVR-A-32,TC/8/650, THIRUMALA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶11

SMT.MINI GOPINATH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶13

SARALA KUMARI,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O.LATE V SAMBASIVAN,RESIDING AT HARBOUR ROAD, SAM NILAYAM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, VIZHINJAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695521

¶14

S.S.SAM KIRAN LAL, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O.LATE V SAMBASIVAN,R/A.HARBOUR ROAD, SAM NILAYAM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, VIZHINJAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695521

¶15

STEPHY SAM, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D/O.SARALA DEVI R/A.HARBOUR ROAD, SAM NILAYAM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, VIZHINJAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695521

¶16

ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED:

¶17

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶18

ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7.4.2014 IN I.A.NO.949/2014. R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.ANUMOD B.NAIR

¶19

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

OP(C).No. 81 of 2014 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10/6/2009 EXECUTED BY SRI.V.SAMBASIVAN IN FAVOUR OF THE IST PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 9/11/2009 EXECUTED BY SRI.V.SAMBASIVAN IN FAVOUR OF THE IST PETITIONER.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.793 OF 2010
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS.NO.793 OF 2010.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/11/2013 IN OS.NO.793 OF 2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

AHZ/

P.Somarajan, J.

O.P.(C)No.81 of 2014 (O)

¶29

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2017

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order dated 26.11.2013 in O.S.No.793 of 2010 of the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, the plaintiffs came up with this petition.

¶32

The dispute involved is with respect to Exts.P1 and P2 documents. Ext.P1 is a mortgage deed and Ext.P2 is a contract. Going through Ext.P1 mortgage, prima facie, it appears that it is a contemporaneous mortgage executed simultaneously by creating mortgage and hence requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The lower court, on the basis of the legal position settled, passed an order holding that Exts.A2 and A3 documents are insufficiently stamped and are liable to be impounded. It is brought to the notice of this Court that there is an observation in the impugned order by the lower court that since the documents are insufficiently stamped, they are not liable to be accepted in evidence. The legal position is well settled by a catena of decisions including

¶33

O.P.(C)No.81 of 2014 (O)

¶34

:: 2 ::

¶35

the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Ahmedsaheb (D) by LRs. and others v. Sayed Ismail (2012 KHC 4393) as well as the decision rendered by this court in Indus Towers Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police (2013 (3) KLT 828) . The legal position is that though the document is unregistered and insufficiently stamped it can be accepted for collateral purpose and not for any other purpose. It is also made clear that marking of documents always not amounts to accepting the same in evidence. Marking is for the purpose of identifying a particular document for the purpose of rendering judgment. A document can be also marked with the objection raised by the opposite party and subject to admissibility.

¶36

With the above observation, the original petition is dismissed.

¶37

P. Somarajan Judge

¶38

ahz/

Babu v. Sarala Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu v. Sarala Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jessy Jaimon Vs State of Kerala

Susan Britto & Others Vs Sosamma Joseph

Super General Company Vs Suresh Thonikkadavu Veedu

Louis Vs Haridasan

The Special Tahsildar.L.a.No.I Vs Kunchamma and Another

Muhammed Haji Vs Muhammedali