Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-07-09 allowed

G.M. SHAHUL HAMEED vs JAYANTHI R. HEGDE

Bench: 2 — Dipankar Datta, Pankaj Mithal

In Brief

A General Power of Attorney (GPA) was admitted as evidence and marked as an exhibit without the trial court applying judicial mind to examine whether it bore sufficient stamp duty. The appellant later sought to impound the insufficiently stamped document and obtain an order for payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The High Court set aside this order, holding that once a document is admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned. The Supreme Court held that section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act bars reconsideration of admissibility only after proper judicial determination. Where the court fails to judicially determine admissibility before marking a document, section 35 does not apply. The trial court may exercise inherent powers under section 151 of CPC to impound the document and direct payment of dues, ensuring compliance with statutory stamp duty obligations.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Stamp Duty Admissibility of Evidence Civil Procedure Property Law Karnataka Stamp Act

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login