High Court of Karnataka Quashes Trial Court Order Rejecting Agreement of Sale in Specific Performance Suit — Document Admissible Without Formal Proof Under Section 294 CrPC. Objection to admissibility of document must be raised at time of marking; failure to object results in waiver.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 03:16:45

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the respondents (defendants). During trial, the plaintiffs examined PW1 and marked the agreement of sale as Ex.P1, which was admitted by the Trial Court without any objection from the defendants. Subsequently, the defendants filed I.A.No.III objecting to the admissibility of Ex.P1 on the grounds that it was insufficiently stamped and not registered. The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the document from evidence. The plaintiffs challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that once a document is admitted without objection, the party cannot later raise objections to its admissibility. The Court relied on Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides that documents admitted without objection are deemed to be proved. The Court also noted that objections regarding insufficient stamp duty or lack of registration must be raised at the time of marking the document. The impugned order was quashed, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Admissibility of Documents - Section 294 CrPC - Objection to admissibility - The Trial Court had initially admitted the agreement of sale (Ex.P1) as evidence without any objection from the defendant. The defendant later raised objections regarding insufficient stamp duty and lack of registration. The High Court held that once a document is admitted without objection, the party cannot later raise objections to its admissibility, as per Section 294 CrPC and principles of waiver. (Paras 1-5)

B) Stamp Act - Insufficiently Stamped Document - Section 35 Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Objection at later stage - The High Court held that an objection regarding insufficient stamp duty must be raised at the time of marking the document. If not raised, the document is deemed to have been admitted and cannot be rejected later. (Paras 3-5)

C) Registration Act - Unregistered Document - Section 17 Registration Act, 1908 - Admissibility in evidence - The High Court held that an unregistered agreement of sale is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes, and the objection regarding registration must be raised at the time of marking. (Paras 3-5)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the agreement of sale (Ex.P1) from evidence on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and not registered, after having initially admitted it without objection.

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.96/2017 is quashed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Law Points

Admissibility of documents
Section 294 CrPC
Section 35 Indian Stamp Act
Section 17 Registration Act
Objection to admissibility at later stage
Waiver of objection

Case Details

2026 LawText (KAR) (04) 18

WP No. 30428 of 2019 (GM-CPC)

2026-04-08

Vijaykumar A. Patil

Sri. Vyasa Rao K.S. for petitioners, Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T. for respondents

Vincent D Almeida and Ashok Madivala

Laxmi Kulathi (since deceased, represented by LRs Raghu Kulala, Sharadha Kulalthi, Baby Kulalthi)

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging order rejecting document from evidence in a suit for specific performance.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of order dated 07.06.2019 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.96/2017.

Filing Reason

The Trial Court rejected the agreement of sale (Ex.P1) from evidence on grounds of insufficient stamp duty and lack of registration, despite having admitted it without objection.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court allowed I.A.No.III filed by defendants and rejected Ex.P1 from evidence.

Issues

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the agreement of sale (Ex.P1) from evidence after having admitted it without objection. Whether objections regarding insufficient stamp duty and lack of registration can be raised after the document has been marked.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the document was admitted without objection and therefore cannot be rejected later. Respondents argued that the document was insufficiently stamped and not registered, hence inadmissible.

Ratio Decidendi

Once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, the party cannot later raise objections to its admissibility. Objections regarding insufficient stamp duty or lack of registration must be raised at the time of marking the document.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiffs have filed this writ petition challenging the Order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Udupi on I.A.No.III filed in O.S.No.96/2017. The Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed by the defendants and rejecting the document from evidence.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.96/2017 for specific performance. During trial, Ex.P1 was marked without objection. Defendants filed I.A.No.III objecting to admissibility. Trial Court allowed I.A. and rejected Ex.P1. Plaintiffs filed WP No.30428/2019 under Article 227. High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order.