H S BASAVANNA Vs. VIMALA DEVI CHAJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this civil revision petition is filed under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') against the order dated 7-3-91 passed by the small causes judge, Bangalore in hrc No. 152/83, that the alleged xerox copy of the agreement for sale is inadmissible in evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records of the case.

(2.) when the petitioner was being examined in the courtbelow, the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to mark the xerox copy of the agreement for sale. The learned counsel for the respondent objected to that on the ground that what was sought to be marked was only copy of the document which was not admissible, duty and penalty cannot be collected on that document and since the document is inadmissible it cannot be admitted in evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this case has relied on baldeudas shivlal and another v filmistan distributors (india) (p) ltd. And others case, wherein it has been held as follows: (ii) by ordering that a question may properly be put to a witness who was examined, no case was decided by the trial court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression 'case' is not limited in its import to the entirety of the matter in dispute in a proceeding. Such an interpretation may result in certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed. But equally, it is not every order of the court in the course of a suit that amounts to a case decided. A case may be said to be decided only if the court adjudicates, for the purpose of this suit, some right or obligation of the parties in controversy." in that very ruling, the Supreme Court has also held as follows:

(3.) it has been contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the agreement was only an agreement and it does not require to be stamped and it is also not required to be registered under the proviso of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. He also contended that the said document can be relied upon by the petitioner under proviso to Section 53 of Transfer Of Property Act. Section 2(j) of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957, defines instrument as follows: