Karnataka High Court
Babulal vs Manikchand on 17 December, 2018
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.34439 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. BABULAL
S/O MISRIMAL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT. No.8, 2ND CROSS
LAKSHMI ROAD
SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
2. SMT. NIRMALA KUMARI
W/O BABULAL
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT. No.8, 2ND CROSS
LAKSHMI ROAD
SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
3. PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O BABULAL
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT. No.8, 2ND CROSS
LAKSHMI ROAD
SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADV.)
AND:
1. MANIKCHAND
S/O MISRIMAL
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. 'SANKALP'
No.10, LAKSHMI ROAD
2
SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
2. SMT. SUSHEELA
W/O MANIKCHAND
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT. 'SANKALP', No.10
LAKSHMI ROAD
SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. GOWRISHANKAR, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
26-07-2017 made as orders regarding marking of the
documents - release deed both dated 13-8-1977 in
O.S.9138/2006 on the file of the court of XXII Addl. City Civil
and Sessions, Bengaluru at Bengaluru vide Annex-D and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 26.07.2017 by which the Trial Court has levied stamp duty in respect of documents 3 namely two deeds of release executed on 13.08.1977 and has further directed that since the documents in question are unregistered, therefore, ten times penalty be imposed.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioners have filed a suit seeking relief of partition. During the course of the proceedings in the suit, the respondents produced two deeds of release executed on 13.08.1977. Admittedly, the aforesaid documents are unregistered. The Trial Court thereafter, by order dated 26.07.2017, has levied the stamp duty of `22.50p. and has also levied ten times penalty as the documents in question are unregistered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the documents in question are release deeds and since they were not registered, therefore, they were inadmissible in evidence and the Trial Court could not 4 have admitted the aforesaid documents subject to levy of stamp duty and penalty thereon. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to the decisions in the cases of 'N.K.SURANA vs. RAMU AND OTHERS' in AIR 2016 MADRAS 91, 'T.N.NANJUNDA SETTY AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE' in AIR 1964 MYSORE 124, 'THE STATE GOVERNMENT BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, CHICKMAGALUR vs. M.L.MANJUNATHA SHETT' in AIR 1972 MYSORE 263, 'T.ARTHI vs. K.ANAND REDDY AND OTHERS' in AIR 2006 AP 335, 'MUNIGURAPPA vs. DODDATHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS' in AIR 2004 KAR 475, 'SMT.LAKSHMAMMA ALIAS LAKAMMA vs. SOMBEGOWDA S/O KODIGOWDA AND OTHERS' in AIR 1995 KAR 326, 'G.RANGAIAH vs. GOVINDAPPA AND OTHERS' in AIR 2008 KAR 151, 'SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS vs. SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS' in AIR 1970 SC 833, 'DANDAPANI SAHU vs. KSHETRA SAHU AND OTHERS' in AIR 1965 ORISSA 37, 'SIROMANI vs. 5 HEMKUMAR AND OTHERS' in AIR 1968 SC 1299, 'BANKEY BIHARI vs. SURYA NARAIN ALIAS MUNNO' in AIR 1999 ALLAHABAD 167 AND 'TELUGU KRISHNA MOHAN vs. BOGGULA PADMAVATHI' in LAWS (APH) 2009 6,11.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that an oral transaction took place on 13.07.1977 which was subsequently reduced into writing on 30.08.1977. Therefore, the aforesaid documents are memorandum of release deeds and are not required to be registered in law and therefore, is admissible in evidence. However, it was fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid documents could not have been admitted to evidence subject to levy of stamp duty and penalty.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In case a document is required in law to be registered, the same cannot be 6 admitted in evidence subject to levy of duty and penalty. The Trial Court, having recorded a finding that the documents in question require registration, could not have admitted the same subject to levy of stamp duty and penalty thereon. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from jurisdictional infirmity as well as error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and set aside. Needless to state that the respondents shall be at liberty to tender the documents in evidence in accordance with law and the Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider the question of admissibility of documents afresh. The respondents shall also be at liberty to seek refund of the amount of duty and penalty paid by them in pursuance of the order passed by the Trial Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV