Karnataka High Court
Sri Gl Chandrashekar S/O Late G ... vs Sri Cr Anilkumar on 3 September, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.16564/2012 (GM-CPC)
Between:
Sri G.L.Chandrashekar,
S/o late G.Lakshmaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
R/a No.108, 10th Main,
4th Block, Nandini Layout,
Bangalore - 560 096. .... Petitioner.
(By Sri G.L. Chandrashekar, petitioner, party-in-person)
And:
1 Sri C.R.Anilkumar,
Adopted s/o late G.Rangaswamy,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o No.12, 3rd Main Road,
Yeshwanthapur Hobli,
Goraguntepalya,
Bangalore - 560022.
2
2 Smt. C.Krishnamma,
W/o late G.Rangaswamy,
Aged about 70 years,
R/o No.12, 3rd Main Road,
Yeshwanthapur Hobli,
Goraguntepalya,
Bangalore - 560022.
3 Smt. R.Sudharani,
W/o G.L.Chandrashekar,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o No.108, 10th Main,
Near Vinayaka Temple,
4th Block, Nandini Layout,
Bangalore - 560 096.
4 State of Karnataka,
Reptd. by Revenue Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore. .... Respondents.
(By Sri Chandrashekar C. Chanaspur, Adv. for R1 and R2
Sri R.B.Satyanarayan Singh, HCGP for R4
R3-Notice dispensed with)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 21.4.2012
on I.A.No.24 in O.S.No.4028/2004 on the file of the 14th
Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court passed the following:
3
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order on I.A.No.24 dated 21.4.2012 in O.S.No.4028/2004 on the file of the 14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the third respondent is the second defendant. Since the matter pertains to payment of stamp duty, the State of Karnataka was impleaded as respondent No.4
2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration that first plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property by holding that the agreement of sale dated 18.12.1996 alleged to have been executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the first defendant, the power of attorney dated 27.2.1988 alleged to have been executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the second defendant and the sale deed dated 25.10.2002 executed by the second plaintiff through her power of attorney holder, the second defendant in the 4 suit are creature of fraud and not binding on them. They have also sought other relief of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and for damages.
3. The plaintiffs have let in their evidence in the suit. In his evidence, when the first defendant wanted to mark the documents, namely, the agreement and the power of attorney referred to above, the plaintiffs objected for the same on the ground that requisite stamp duty has not been paid on the said documents. Therefore, the court below directed the office to calculate the stamp duty and penalty. Accordingly, the office has calculated the stamp duty and penalty payable by the defendants. The determination of the stamp duty by the office was objected to by both the parties. Therefore, the court below has referred the documents to the District Registrar for determination of the duty and penalty. Accordingly, the District Registrar has determined the duty and penalty in a sum of Rs.52,250/- on the agreement and Rs.1,100/- on the power of attorney. In accordance with the order of the District Registrar, the 5 defendants have deposited the duty and penalty. According to the plaintiffs, the determination of duty and penalty on the agreement to sell is not proper. They requested the court below to mark the document subject to their objection relating to duty and penalty. It is their case that the question relating to sufficiency of duty and penalty can be determined by the court below along with the main. Therefore, defendants filed I.A.No.24 to hear the objections relating to sufficiency of duty and penalty on the agreement. The court below has dismissed the application.
4. I have heard the petitioner/first defendant in the suit, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.4
5. The District Registrar has determined the duty and penalty in a sum of Rs.52,250/- on the agreement of sale. Admittedly, the first defendant has deposited the said duty and penalty. According to the plaintiffs, the determination of duty and 6 penalty is improper. It is their contention that the market value of the property is much higher than what has been determined by the District Registrar for the purpose of payment of the stamp duty. That is why the first defendant filed application-I.A.No.24 for hearing the objection relating to the marking of the said document. The court below has held that the contention relating to sufficiency of duty and penalty will be considered at the time of final arguments.
6. In fact, the plaintiffs have questioned the validity of the order of the District Registrar dated 22.2.2012 determining the duty and penalty in W.P.No.17943/2012. On 13.6.2012, this Court has rejected the writ petition with a direction to the trial Court to look into the order of the District Registrar. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the court below is right in holding that the question relating to duty and penalty has to be considered at the final hearing because the District Registrar has already determined the duty and penalty. I do 7 not find any error in the order requiring interference. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
BMM/-