Karnataka High Court
Sri. V.R. Ramesh S/O B R Ramaiah vs M.P. Babuprasad S/O Late M Papanna on 11 June, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.6238/2011 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V.R.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
SON OF B.R.RAMAIAH,
2. SRI.V.R.SRIDHARA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS:
SRI.V.R.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEAS
S/O.B.R.RAMAIAH
BOTH ARE R/AT NO:132,
BYRASANDRA,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 093. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV.)
AND:
M.P.BABUPRASAD,
S/O.LATE M.PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE & POST,
VIA BANAWADI,
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE- 560 043. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.HARIPRASAD, ADV. FOR MATHRU ASSTS.)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS, FROM VII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.6954/1998
AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD 20.10.10 PASSED IN
O.S.NO. 6954/1998, BY VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVL
JUDGE AT BANGALORE IS PRODUCED AS ANNEX-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 20.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.6954/1998 which is impugned at Annexure-K to the petition. By the said order, the Court below taking note of the documents produced at Sl. Nos. 3 to 6 for the purpose of marking has directed that the stamp duty payable on the same be calculated and recovered with penalty.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order would contend that the Court was not justified inasmuch as the Court below at the first instance has not properly taken into consideration the fact that the documents relate to an earlier period prior 3 to the amendment which has been brought to the Stamp Act in the year 1995. Secondly, it is contended that the Court below was also not justified in holding that the stamp duty is to be calculated on the three documents separately i.e., the Power of Attorney, Affidavit and Agreement of Sale. It is therefore contended that the Court below is not justified.
3. The learned Government advocate as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondent would seek to justify the order passed by the Court below. It is contended that the Court below on taking note that the said documents are contemporaneous and possession is handed over, the order has been made to recover the stamp duty with penalty which is justified.
4. In the light of the same, a perusal of the papers would indicate that at the first instance, the Court below has impounded the said documents and the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.17848/2006 which is disposed of on 25.06.2008 with a direction to 4 the trial Court to consider the matter after providing opportunity to the petitioners. It is in that circumstance, the Court below has passed the present order. In order to determine the correctness of the same, a perusal of the documents would indicate that the Affidavit, Agreement of Sale and the General Power of Attorney which are the documents at Sl. Nos. 3 to 6 are contemporaneous documents relating to the same transaction whereunder, interest in the property has been created. If that be so, even prior to 1995, the stamp duty was payable if it was to be considered as a transaction where right and interest in the property is created, since the same would amount to conveyance. In that light, the Court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the stamp duty is payable.
5. Even while directing that the stamp duty be determined at Rs.12,674/- and the penalty which is indicated in the said order is applicable, the Court below has taken note of the three documents i.e., the 5 documents at Sl.Nos. 3 to 6. Very nature of consideration would disclose when reference has been made to the rate at Rs.30/-per Sq. Ft to be the reference, the same refers the value indicated in the agreement and in that view, the other documents are inclusive of the stamp duty which has been calculated. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the same are separately calculated and the stamp duty indicated but it is in respect of one transaction which comprises of the documents at Sl.Nos.3 o 6 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is justified and stamp duty shall be collected only in such manner.
6. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the above clarification.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*