Karnataka High Court
Smt Puttamma vs Sri O D Rathnakar on 11 July, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
ON THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION No 38041 OF 2010(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HUNASEKOPPA
H HOSUR VILLAGE,
KOPPA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SRI H G GOVIND ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR NADIG, ADV)
AND :
SRI O D RATHNAKAR
S/O LATE DUGGAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ONITHOTE MARITHOTLU VILLAGE,
KOPPA TALUK, ANDAGARU POST,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT
(SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.10.2010
2
PASSED IN O.S.No. 69/2006 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 25.3.2005 and consequential reliefs. During the evidence of the GPA holder of the plaintiff, an objection was raised by the defendants to mark the agreement and the receipt produced by the plaintiffs dated 25.2.2005 and 25.3.2005 respectively on the ground that those documents cannot be marked until and unless the petitioner pays the duty and penalty on the same. On this issue, the Trial Court passed the impugned order impounding the two documents and directing the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
2. Examined the impugned order and considered the pleadings. The Trial Court was of the view that the agreement dated 25.2.2005 even though does not contain 3 the recital of handing over of possession, however, the recitals of the receipt dated 25.3.2005 would show that he has handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Hence, the Trial Court held that the receipt is the continuation of the agreement and considered as one document. Since the recitals of the receipt discloses that the suit property has been handed over to the plaintiff, the Trial Court held that appropriate stamp duty and penalty has to be imposed, since there is a deficit stamp duty which the plaintiff is liable to pay and consequential penalty on the same. I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court that calls for interference. The Trial Court having impounded the said documents, directed the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty. The same is in accordance with law and in tune with the facts and circumstances. The document has been considered by the Trial Court by exercising power under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The impugned order has been passed impounding the documents and demanding duty and penalty. I' am of the considered view that there is no error in the impugned order.
4
4. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Msu