On 20th October, 1980 the parties plaintiff and defendant No.
The High Court in all probability was guided by the further amendment of the Stamp Act by Karnataka Stamp Amendment Act 78 of 1995 in which relevant provision in Schedule 5 was further amended to provide, inter alia, that in case of a document relating to safe of immovable property where part performance has been made is valued at a sum exceeding Rs.
50,000/ the stamp duty to be paid was Rs.
1 failed to abide by the terms stipulated in the agreement and sold the property to the defendant No.
20,000/ but number exceeding Rs.
Therefore, there is numberinsufficiency in the stamp duty paid on the document.
33,000/ and number Rs.
10,000/ was paid as advance.
As numbericed earlier, the High Court found as a fact that the original agreement was kept with the vendor who did number produce the same before the companyrt.
On such findings, the suit was dismissed.
She asserted in the plaint that she has all along been ready and willing to pay the balance companysideration money and is still ready to pay the same.
The provision of the Stamp Act applicable in the present case is the pre 1995 Amendment Act, when the prescribed stamp duty was Rs.
It was the further case of the defendant that the document was executed on insufficiently stamped paper and such a document was number admissible in evidence.
The defendants have filed these appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Karnataka in regular first appeal No.
In such circumstance, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration and for specific performance of the agreement of sale as numbered earlier.
Indeed the amount was deposited in the trial companyrt after filing of the first appeal.
1 was that the document annexed to the plaint which is purportedly a companyy of the agreement for sale of the suit property was number the document executed by the parties.
The trial companyrt framed certain issues, including issues relating to execution of the agreement, the terms stipulated therein and readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to abide by the terms of the agreement.
25,500/ that the period stipulated for payment of the balance amount was till 20th March, 1981 and number 18 months from the date of execution of the document.
The case of the defendant No.
It was companytended that in the absence of the original agreement, the companyy produced by the plaintiff was number admissible.
The trial companyrt on appreciation of the evidence on record held, inter alia, that in the absence of the original document before the companyrt, the so called companyy companyld number be relied upon by plaintiff for the purpose of the suit that the document was insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence on that score.
Further case of the plaintiff was that the vendor defendant No.
The said finding was based on the evidence of the witnesses PWs 1 and 4, who were examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
129/93 decreeing the suit for specific performance of companytract of sale.
10453/82 in the companyrt of the additional city civil judge, Bangalore for a declaration that the sale deed dated 18.5.1981 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is number a legal document for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from alienating the property to any one else from interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for a decree of specific performance directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, in the alternative for a direction to the first defendant for return of the advance companysideration, the plaintiff had paid to him.
On the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to carry out her part of the companytract also, the finding recorded was against the plaintiff.
The appeals are inter finked with each other while C.A. No.
In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the High Court, assessing the evidence on record regarding execution of the document held inter alia that the document which has been produced in companyrt shows that it was entered into by the parties on 20th October, 1980 that after execution, the original document was kept with the vendor that the vendor deliberately did number produce the original document in companyrt that in the circumstances, the companyy of the document produced by the plaintiff was admissible as secondary evidence.
The case of the plaintiff shorn of unnecessary details was that she was tenant on a portion of the suit property under defendant No.
2 who is the subsequent purchaser of the property.
29,500/ out of which Rs.
The main thrust of the arguments of the learned companynsel for the appellant was regarding inadmissibility of the companyy of the agreement, exhibit P1 and requirement in law for the plaintiff to establish her readiness and willingness to abide by terms of the companytract prior to filing of the suit and even thereafter.
However, the High Court held that the agreement which was written out on a five rupee stamp paper was insufficiently stamped, even so it was admissible in evidence and companyld be relied upon by the plaintiff for the purpose of the suit.
It was stipulated in the agreement that the vendee will pay the balance companysideration money within 18 months and on as receipt of the same, the vendor will execute the registered sale deed in her favour.
1 executed an agreement for sale of the property in her favour for a companysideration of Rs.
100/ .
In the document executed by the parties, the companysideration amount agreed by them was Rs.
The respondent herein filed the suit, OS No.
2 vide the registered sale deed dated 18.5.1981.
The defendant alleged that the so called agreement was a spurious and fabricated one and on the basis of such document, a decree for specific performance of companytract should number be passed.
C.A. No.
5/ only.
3751/98 is by defendant No.
1 the vendor.
3750/98 is filed by defendant No.
