Karnataka High Court
Smt Vasanthamma vs Sri Dasharatha Reddy on 4 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.58196 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT VASANTHAMMA
W/O SRI.N.CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU
R/AT A-MEDAHALLI,
C.D.HOSAKOTE, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H V, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI DASHARATHA REDDY
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. SRI KODANDARAMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
3. SRI NAGESHA REDDY
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4. SRI RAJENDRA
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2
5. SRI GOPALA REDDY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
6. SRI MUNIREDDY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
7. SRI PRAKASH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
8. SRI VANAMALA
W/O LATE VIJAENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESPONDENT Nos. 1-8 ARE R/AT
DEVARABISNAHALLI VILLAGE, WARD NO. 150,
BELLANDUR, VARTUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 562 106.
9. SRI S SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O LATE SHANKARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
10 . SRI S BALAKRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE SHANKARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
11 . SRI S GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE SHANKARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
12 . SRI S VENKATESHA REDDY
S/O LATE SHANKARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
13 . SMT PAVITHRA S
D/O LATE SHANKARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
3
RESPONDENTS No. 9-13 ARE
R/AT ANGADI SHANKARA REDDY
OPP:SRINIVASA MEDICAL STORES
DEVARABISANAHALLI VILLAGE, WARD NO. 150,
BELLANDUR, VARTUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2,
R5 TO R7 AND R9
R3, R4, R8 AND R10 TO R13 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.9.2016 AS PER
ANNEXURE-G PASSED IN O.S.NO.3014/2011 BY THE
LEARNED XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY AND THE OFFICE NOTE ASPER
ANNEXURE-H AND THEREBY DISMISS IA NO.III FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2016, passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No. 3014/2011 by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore and the office note vide Annexure-H, has filed this writ petition.
4
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
That the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.3014/2011 seeking for the relief of perpetual injunction based on the registered sale deed dated 16.06.2006, having been purchased from one Giriyappa. The respondents appeared and filed written statement. Thereafter the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P3 i.e., registered General Power of Attorney dated 11.09.1995, and also Ex.P4, affidavit dated 14.09.1995. Thereafter respondents filed an application under Sections 33 and 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and sought for impounding the documents produced by the petitioner at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.
Petitioner filed a detailed objection. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 15.09.2016, allowed the application filed by the respondents and directed the office to calculate if 5 Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 have been executed on requisite stamp duty and further to calculate the stamp duty and penalty on those documents. As per the order dated 15.09.2016, office has calculated the stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has lead evidence and got marked Ex.P3, General Power of Attorney and the said document is registered in accordance with law. He further submits that Ex.P4 is an affidavit. As on the date of execution of the affidavit, stamp duty payable on the same was Rs.15/-. He submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in passing an order to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the said document. The Trial Court has committed an error in 6 passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. In order to consider the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to consider Article 4 of the Schedule of the Karnataka Stamp Act which provides for payment of proper stamp duty on affidavit, including an affirmation or declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm to declare instead of swearing. Stamp duty payable was Rs.15/- and same was substituted by Rs.20/- w.e.f. 01.04.2000.
8. Admittedly, Ex.P4 was executed on stamp paper of Rs.15/-. As per Article 4, the affidavit was executed on required stamp paper.
7
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and got marked registered General Power of Attorney as Ex.P3. The said power of attorney was registered on 11.09.1995. The said document came to be registered as per Article 41(ec) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The petitioner has paid the requisite stamp duty on the general power of attorney and same has been registered. From the perusal of the office note in the order sheet of the Trial Court, it discloses that Ex.P3 is a registered document. The office, taking note of Ex.P3 as registered document, did not calculate the duty and penalty.
10. Insofar as the affidavit is concerned, the petitioner has got marked the same as Ex.P4. From the perusal of Ex.P4 vide Annexure-D, the affidavit was executed on 14.09.1995, on Rs.15/- stamp paper. As per Article 4 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, an affidavit has to be executed on a stamp paper of 8 Rs.15/- only in the year 1995. The same was substituted by Act No.7/2000 w.e.f. 01.04.2000. The affidavit was executed on requisite stamp paper. The Trial Court, without considering the said aspect, has proceeded to pass the impugned order which is contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Hence on these grounds, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated
15.09.2016 and the office note vide
Annexure-H, are hereby quashed and set aside.
SD/-
JUDGE RD