Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayalakshmamma vs Sri. Mc Vasudev on 11 October, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37128
WP No. 11541 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 11541 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT NO.4, 1ST MAIN
DOMLUR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-570071.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. M C VASUDEV
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.1676/1
NORTHERN EXTENSION
HASSAN TOWN
Digitally signed by HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
A K CHANDRIKA
Location: High 2. SRI A V SURESH BABU
Court Of
Karnataka S/O D VARDHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO.6647, SIRA ROAD
TUMKUR TOWN
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572106.
3. SRI M D MURTHY
S/O LATE DASAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT MUNIYURU VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, TAVAREKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572139.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAN PRASAD, ADV. FOR R1-3)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37128
WP No. 11541 of 2020
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER
IN I.A.NO.VIII PASSED 12/03/2018 IN O.S.NO.25/2017 ON THE FILE
OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMKUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Chokkareddy for petitioner/defendant No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Mohan Prasad for respondents/plaintiffs. Perused the writ petition papers.
2. The petitioner, defendant No.1 in O.S.No.25/2017 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru (for short, 'Trial Court') is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 12.03.2018 by which I.A.No.8 filed under Sections 33(1), 34 and 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, '1957 Act') is dismissed.
3. The respondents/plaintiffs' suit is one for specific performance of unregistered agreement dated 24.12.2013. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant No.1 -3- NC: 2023:KHC:37128 WP No. 11541 of 2020 that agreement is executed on stamp paper of Rs.500/- and consideration shown in the agreement is Rs.2 Crores. It is submitted that in terms of Article 5(e)(ii), the respondents/plaintiffs ought to have paid maximum stamp duty of Rs.20,000/- based on the sale consideration. Learned counsel taking through the impunged order would submit that Trial Court committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.8 filed by petitioner/defendant No.1 under Sections 33(1), 34 and 37 of 1957 Act by observing that though the plaintiffs are ready to pay the balance stamp duty on the said document, in terms of 1957 Act it can be collected in due course.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Mohan Prasad for respondents/plaintiffs would submit that plaintiffs are ready to pay the stamp duty to be determined under the 1957 Act.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the Trial Court committed an error in -4- NC: 2023:KHC:37128 WP No. 11541 of 2020 rejecting I.A.No.8 filed under Sections 33(1), 34 and 37 of 1957 Act.
6. Under Section 33 of 1957 Act, every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a public office, before whom any instrument, chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. In other words, if the authority before whom, any instrument is not duly stamped is produced, such authority shall impound such instrument forthwith for payment of balance stamp duty. Therefore, the Trial Court is not justified in dismissing I.A.No.8 filed under Sections 33(1), 34 and 37 of 1957 Act, observing that stamp duty can be collected in due course. Unless the balance stamp duty is collected, the instrument cannot be permitted to be marked. A duty is caste upon the Trial Court under Section 33 of 1957 Act to -5- NC: 2023:KHC:37128 WP No. 11541 of 2020 impound the document if the instrument is not sufficiently stamped. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1) Writ petition is allowed.
2) Impugned order dated 12.03.2018 on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.25/2017 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru is set aside.
3) Trial Court is directed to consider I.A.No.8 in accordance with Sections 33(1), 34 and 37 of 1957 Act and pass appropriate order.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54