Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj Patil vs Kallappa Gouda @ Kaligananath And Ors on 17 February, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.201828/2018 (GM-ST/RN)
Between:
Shivaraj Patil S/o Late Siddan Gouda
Aged about 67 years, Occ: Retd. Bank Employee
R/o H.No.12-6-1012, L.B.S. Nagar,
Raichur.
... Petitioner
(By Sri R.S. Sidhapurkar, Advocate)
And:
1. Kallappa Gouda @ Kaligananath
S/o Late Siddanagouda
Aged about 63 years
Occ: Agriculture & Employee
R/o Jagir Venkatapur Village, Tq. Raichur
Dist. Raichur-584101
2. Smt.Madumathi W/o Late Basavaraj
Aged about 65 years, Occ: House wife
R/o 3-6-53, Beroon Quilla
Raichur-584101
3. Siddarth S/o Late Basavaraj
Aged about 34 years, Occ: Student
R/o 3-6-53, Beroon Quilla
Raichur-584101
4. Smt.Shanthala W/o Prabhakar
Aged about 45 years, Occ: House wife
R/o 3-6-53, Beroon Quilla
Raichur-584101
2
5. Smt. Manorama W/o Rajashekar
Nirmanvi Aged about 44 years
Occ: House wife, R/o 3-6-53
Beroon Quilla
Raichur-584101
6. Dr. Majula W/o Santosh
Aged about 43 years, Occ: House wife
R/o 3-6-53, Beroon Quilla
Raichur-584101
7. Chandrashekhar S/o Late Siddan Gouda
Aged about 65 years, Occ: Govt. Employee
R/o 9-5-450/34, Kalyan Nagar
Koppal-583231
8. Shivashankar S/o Late Siddan Gouda
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Conductor,
R/o 3-6-53, Beroon Quilla
Raichur-584101
9. Smt. Gouramma W/o Malleshappa
Aged about 49 years, Occ: Household
R/o 3-7-37, Beroon Quilla
Raichur-584101
10. Siddan Gouda S/o Shivaraj Patil
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.12-6-1012, LBS Nagar,
Raichur-584101
11. Parvathamma W/o Shivaraj Patil
Aged 62 years Occ: Housewife
R/o H.No.12-6-1012 LBS Nagar,
Raichur-584101
... Respondents
(By Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate for R1;
Notice to R2 to R11-Dispensed with)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and
quash the order dated 20.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.117 of 2011 by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge at Raichur, the certified copy of which is at
Annexure-F and etc.
3
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.117/2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Raichur (for short, 'the trial court') whereby the trial court rejected the report submitted by the District Registrar and directed the petitioner to pay duty and penalty in a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- before the trial court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner was defendant No.6 in the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff for partition and separate possession and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties. In the said suit, while petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.6, respondent Nos.2 to 11 were arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 11, respectively.
4
4. During the course of evidence, the petitioner sought to mark certain documents styled as Memorandum of partition and agreement of sale. The respondent No.1/plaintiff opposed marking of said documents on the ground that the same are insufficiently stamped and not admissible in evidence. Accepting the said objections put-forth by the plaintiff, the trial court passed an order dated 27.11.2017 by coming to the conclusion that the said documents were insufficiently stamped and consequently directing the petitioner to pay duty and penalty of Rs.3,52,000/- calculated by the Registry/Office of the trial court on 05.12.2017.
5. Since the petitioner did not pay the said duty and penalty on account of which the aforesaid documents were not marked in evidence, the trial court impounded the said documents by exercising powers under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the said Act of 1957') and referred the documents to the District Registrar for adjudication. By order/report dated 15.02.2018, the District Registrar came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.70,640/- towards deficit stamp duty and Rs.70,640/- towards penalty, in all Rs.1,41,280/- on the said documents. In pursuance of the same, the District 5 Registrar forwarded the said order/report to the trial court. Upon receipt of the order/report, the petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs.1,41,280/- before the trial court. However, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the order/report of the District Registrar, aggrieved by which petitioner is before this court by way of the present writ petition.
6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court will clearly indicate that upon the trial court exercising powers only under Section 33 of the said Act of 1957 by impounding the documents in question and referring the same for adjudication of payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty to the District Registrar, the trial court becomes functus officio insofar as deficit stamp duty and penalty is concerned and after the District Registrar adjudicates upon the documents and directs payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, the trial court does not have any option but to collect the stamp duty and penalty as adjudicated and determined by the District Registrar; further, any party who is aggrieved by the order/report of the District Registrar adjudicating and determining the duty and penalty has to challenge in a manner known to law and not by way of filing objections to the order/report 6 of the District Registrar. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the trial court completely misdirected itself in calling upon the petitioner to pay duty and penalty calculated by the Registry/Office of the trial court prior to the documents being referred to the District Registrar which is not only contrary to the facts and probabilities of the case but also the provisions of the said Act of 1957. It is therefore clear that the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and has resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this court in the present petition.
7. In the result, I pass the following;
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) Impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed in
O.S.No.117/2011 by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Raichur is hereby set aside.
iii) The trial court is directed to accept the report/order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Raichur and consequently accept the sum of Rs.1,41,280/- deposited by the petitioner towards deficit stamp duty and penalty.
7
iv) Trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to mark the aforesaid documents in respect of which deficit stamp duty and penalty have been paid in their evidence and proceed further in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL