Karnataka High Court
Shri Shanath Kumar V V vs Shri Manik Satwajirao Jathar on 4 November, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1.
{N THE HIGH com?!' OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MR.JUS'I'iCE RAM MOE'iAi~I--.I?_§,3}i3'f1'&'~AV A! "
WRIT PETITEON No.58?!) of 3098 (i.21vi~C'P<:1
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHANATH KUMAR v'v_
AG-ED 38 YEARS,;-QCC B'<.i'S--IE§_E'ES'S_
R/O SADALAGAVB._IJi--LD1'_NC% V . " ' "
6TH CROSS, ADARSHNAG:A§2:»'
HINDAWADI, BELGAVUM. V ._ "
(33,? ADV.)
é SHRI_M.AN!K SATWAJIRAO JATHAR
" 'ace AGRICULTURE
«R-,I0.,;~i NO--*'161/E, LAXM! GALLI
9 BACEKSIQE, 01.1) BELGAUM, BELGAUM.
" s§¢EHALATA
'WJO NINGOJI P'A'I'iL
'' MAJOR, (300 H H WORK
4 R/OF' ROH HOUSE NO 36/7}-72,
SANKUL, NEAR DINANATH MANAGESHKAR
HOSPITAL, ERANDAVANE,
PURE 433004.
(By Sri. M G NAGANURI, ADV. FOR R2)
'~._f .
A PET;TzoNER.
RESPONDENTS.
4. The controversy brought before this Court lies in a narrow compass. The plaintifi instituted the suit fojrvspecfific performance of an age-ement of sale dated' allegedly executed by the 1" 1'es§)ondent"9whoije'V"fi1e..V " V respondent is said to be the sistef-of the. :'I°i' in the suit, the 2"" respondent I.A."lVE'o'.'2 AV.Seo1ions * and 34 of the Act to of sale ciated 22-12-2004 for not bein§%"pxc{V_per;_13rt'.€::1d.eAsufficiently stamped.
'That application Statement of objec1iEpns.-- __ (301111, having observed the endoxsetznent acknowledgement for having 1eee.§Veds..Rs.t'>5,Qt)O'/~ on 25-02-2005 and necontling delivery of of the suit property to the plaintifi", as I 5 of the sale agreement, the suit document, heiil that ifefell within the mischief of Article 5 (e)(i) of the Act, by the order impugned, impounded the document 'A payment of penalty and duty.
5. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the pefitioner that though the Trial Court did have the jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Act to =5 3 I, ,g A, \:I:/ 'K. impound the document, neverlzheless, did not have the jurisdiction to dimct payment of ciuty and Section 34 of the Act, if and when the pIa;i11tifi' document in evidence and not tfl1~*i;.'3.en. xconnzéei V' relies upon the decision of a leaiiueéfi Court in the case of vs.'-
NARAYAN Ann AHOTHER1.
6. There being -_rv;o~ %j;'n_a{"tI1e:'Ȏ1gIeement of sale, a suit with the plaint for specific' and the I.A.No.2 was fiied even befoi*e.._ f.he trial, there can be no doubt before Whom. the document was ' under Section 33 of the Act, had the H the document either on the premise the{ it teas' not stamped at all or was insufficiently stamped. ffiosfevef, Section 34 to Section 37 of the Act would apply "When the document is irztxodueed in evidence. ' 1969 (2) ML} 299
7. The observations in the decision mfcmed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the apposite:
"19. The correct posi1io11..t}:1err:fo.it',V' would be that documents A' impounded should b€ .i_J:I3.pG1 11}(.i(*Z{1 as T 'as; their liability to be eom.eS', 'the notice of the Presiding ajjle them ti}! the date;jjo"f.tris§it. tendered in evidence, he shotilti 'aotv 'pmviso to 3.34. Seo.3?(1) to send copy.' of such instrument to'gethet stating the amount of ciutfzaxzéici in respect thereof to the Deputy Cotitfiiisoioner. If they are not admitted V V. :'evia§..ence, then act under sub--sec. (2) V' of send the original document to the " [v§e};i--§.ityvA'e:=.('io11113ttissioner for assessment of duty argid V' v 8. Having regard to the aforesaid provisions of the Act V' god the observations in Iakshminaxayanachafs case, the impounding of the agreement of sale, in question, by the Court below cannot be found fiauit with. However," the direction to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on or before 10~03~20{}8,_;e-act: " ' otherwise the said document woliid ~ sent to B.C., Belgaum to is=:
illegal and unsustainable.
9. In the result, in part.
The order c1a;ed..Tnn29--o::-290$ it relates to the impounding of" :.l:I1V"{.:F.l¢i';S"f§iOI1 is sustained and the dixncirbn"fl?:9f9a§:7fihc:"'cigéficit«'"f:éta'""mp : duty and 10 timrs ymalty 'q'i.nashc(ViV.'i«£: that in the event the "iflt1'i}dt1($€'f:h€ document in evidence, tbs:
< n£:'E11.ndcr the pmviso to Sccfion 34 of the Act; " with law and in thz light of th:
supra as alse in the (incision mfcrred to 'above. a Sd/'-n Iudgé