Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O Bhikkappa Lamani vs Parasappa S/O Sanganabasappa Halabar on 31 October, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31%'? DAY OCTOBER " H BEFORE:-' THE H()N'BLE MRJUSTICE 1éA:_a:* §1bHAI~: %%A1*ez.e*,.13s:>s'r : / i WRIT PET¥'£'ION NUMBEI§§'3r§35p_/gbosEM-€190) 8 Em: _ % BASAPPA, -- V s/0. BHIKKAPPA' LAMANT," % . ; AGED 48 YEARS',g§f*CC::=.AGRI'CU'L;fijRE.,_. :A R/O. HIRE-'G-U.LAE3ALTA'NDA, 'I'AL&i)IS'i': PETITIONER. (SE1. 9.}; uKUI;KARf§iI;w_§§D3;f ;}«. V-§§§K29s§SA?PA, %%%%% ' -.51'-3, SANGANABASAPPA HALABAR, ' V TSINCEK DECEASED, BY ms ms. 2. srs)rT._§:;§;;1#§éVwA, W] O; SANGANABASAPPA HALABAR, AG~EDj_65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, TR] (DEJADRAMKUNTI, ~ 'ML & DIST: BAGALKQT. ' 3,; Sim'. BHARAMAWWA, T W/0. PARASAPPA HALABAR, AGED 40 YEARS, occ: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JADRANfl(UNTI, TAL 845 DIST: BAGALKOT. },Ari'«l 4. SANGAWWA 5. SANGAPPA 5. MANJUNATH RESPONDENTS 4, 5 as 6 f«'RE._SONS..OF V V
PARASAPPA I-IALABAR, s1N»:;E'M1NoRs, REP. BY THEIR GUARDIAN MQTEIER "
ALL ARE R/O. JAB'RAMKU_N'I§l,, " M TAL. 35 DIST: BAGALKOT'. RESPONDENTS. THIS WRfF'}1j?ETiT!ON IS FILED' U-P¥~{){3R ARTICLES 226 & 227 CE -"awe'~-.(:{:»N:3T3:fI'ufr1€}N-,01?» INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE :p'§3DER 4033;» £_.A.-NOgVII DATED 24-06-2008 PASSED.' V...B_'i"~._'I'£~I'f:"3:,_ ..PRL. CIVI-L.,._JUDGE (SFLDN) COURT BAGALKOT 1rM).s.'N0.43;_2o05 AT ANNEXURE---'F'. 'I'xIA-'¥IS'-- FET1Tié;\L"--~¢0hiING ON FOR PRELIWNARY I~iEARIN(}",'<'1fH!S :;AY,.TH§;.»LVcoUI?r MADE THE FOLLOWING:
~ ' '' "ORDER OS 43/2005 aggrieved by the order of the Pr}. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bagaikot, diéfefidants' IA No.7 under Sccs.33 to 35 of the Stamp Act, 1957, for short Act, and directing to pay stamp duty and penalty of Rs. V' 2§28,8GO/ - on the agecmcnt of saiqthc suit dacumcm, has M presented this petifion invoking A1't.22_'_7* 4' . Constitution oflndia.
2. The suit insfituted bjthg pxéinfiajtpefifiquag fo r » specific performance qf an §_3_.4§1'"~':',<::1:u:1.;;nt" 'cf': dated 10.2.2004, Annexure that the entire sale consiicrafiqn by the petitioner of the immovabk: V what remains is the exccutiéfin 'V vendors. The plaint avcnnc1V'it:sv_"turI;t1ethcr or not pozwession of the sait ' u.:?as tit:vlAi#;'c1ed, howcvcr, the prayer is that ' " possession and enjoymcnt L._.6i'_t1uie Though in the Written statement the dciivexy of possession of the suit property to the" nevcrthcicss, the defendants filed I.A.Ne.'7 6.6.2007 under Secs.33 to 35 ofthe 'Act', to direct {he plainfiff to pay the penalty and stamp duty on the agwcement of sale. In the memo of fiacts accompanying the application it is specifically averted that as possession 91' BK the suit schedule property was delivered to ~ agreement of sale attracts ' V application was opposed by fi11n' Vlg stgiteéinéflt' of the plaintiff, Anncxun: '~t1ic fach§.id.i.i.'»9f "
been put in possession of the «. . §
3. The trial court recital in the iiof document, that possession éf J ":.3wés delivcmti to the the decision of this court vs. Smt K Vijayaiakshmi and others, 2906(3) KCCR 1915 and the decision .. M T Kamalalnma and another 2007 Kar.4752 held that the agreement of in qaesgzaén attracted the provision of Art.5(c) (i) of _the find accordingly, ailowed the application, after A ' _" the duty and pcnaity payable on the said Hi%;st:z11mcnt.
K...' Act attracting stamp duty payable on the convcgfénég _ agreement of sale cannot but be txcaficd as « pmpcr stamp duty payable théxjcoiil--T is conveyance (No.20) on the market va_1'fie: cf %» while Explanation II says wl:Vie1?.2': 'V-éu1:"§':.f.e<;u£:11t1y conveyance is executc:t1;_._'3:V.'*1c on the agreement' shall {flees not in any Way give an" éfifiba . the stamp duty subsequeniiy.
'I'hev --o1:dcrV court, in my considered opinion,_ H cam.m. 11eV:V'V-faA111_;l:e't*3."bLVWith. The writ petition is 'V and injected.
Sd/-}___ Judge