Smt.Dyavamma Alias Sanna Mukkamma W/O ... vs Smt. Balamma W/O Yallappa on 23 April, 2010

[Cites 6, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

Smt.Dyavamma Alias Sanna Mukkamma W/O ... vs Smt. Balamma W/O Yallappa on 23 April, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 

INTﬁﬂﬁHHH§COURT(H?KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

EATED TI-IIS THE .;3"*' DAY OF APRI3{3~;**2'(jﬁ_()".l' %. " 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ;§NAm 1 T T

WRIT PETITION No.s342_9 <)Tr-.2'eo9  
BETWEEN  x " V'   V

SMT. DYAVAMMA ALIAS} ;
SANNA MUKKAMMA,   s
W/O NAGAPPA HONNALL1 T
AGED 69    
occ. AGRICVLTVLT£J'RE..AND_
HoUs1«:H0=tLD,;-. "  _     
R/O SINGAFU'R1E?1LLAGE';-- ~  
TQ. SINDHNQTDR.     ...PETI'I'IONER

[BY sRf%'TsH:vAKp'5§4;aR«§§;Is.;r;1.,ooR, ADV.,)

AND__

 f 'V "  .1 . Sl\&'T:.A"TBAI<AMM}X';""' 'A
 EV:/"0_ X'AL:,A§PA.
" AGED' BOUT Ew.8_l.YEARS,

0:: C--;.T'Ho'LrsE;:1OLD,

 g 2. SMT.'"'MIDIAMMA.
  kw/0 YALLAPPA,
 ' ..fAGE'D ABOUT 5: YEARS,
 _ 'occ ..=HOU'SE HOLD,

 'f_ V ~ T13.é)'m R/O K HOSAHALLI



EX.)

VILLAGE, TQ. SINDHNOOR.

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
DEPT. OF REVENUE,

BY SECRETARY.
VIDI-LANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE.      it

[BY sm I"-'CS. MALIPATIL, Am/.. Fo.R'&   ,  
SR1 s s KUMMAN, GA FORR3)  "   

******¥$ '

This writ petition_Vj's_ f;_1ed_Vufidertiﬁrticles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of Ir1diz«i, to quash the
impugned orderfxnnexiure. E dated' 25.p4;v,?2009 passed by
the Pr}. CiVi1_.Judg:e J§.unior}I)ivisijon Sfindhnoor in OS.
No.81/08 on holding that thewpetitioner did not
pay the st.i1mp"'.di;it3z »61'I'1v'.',f':J"-._Iv.).'t3..T.1:';,1lt'y' as observed the triai

T'his._ petitiQn_v.on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group, beingh'ejardua_nd< reserved for orders, this day
the Court '*deiivver"ed the following:

t9_13_DE__e
V "  'V'Heatd4'the"_:eounse} for the parties.

  'iacts of the case are as foliows:

 ffhe petitioner has fiied a suit for specific:

   .p€i'forma111ce of ct()nt1"ac:t',. He had sought to produce the

.:/''"m:.;
 "MA,
z. . .. .--/



agreement. of sale, which was the subject matter  the

suit. The agreement had been executed on star;-:}"p~wp"a15eur

of inadequate value. The petitioner had  V'

the difference of stamp duty Qr1"'the 

before filing the suit. The resﬁondents

filed their written stateizfient hoi2\(e\'eif';_;   an it

interlocutory application  that" the said
document be impound4ed;_"  having held
that though   been paid on
the doeumgelntg---+i:"t)§t_ the shortfall, before

filing :oi"hmlVt'11e}vf.  ddhodeument could not be

impoun'c1.ed«but «that the petitioner is bound

to pay _pen_alty_:hon..the°safhe as duty is paid belatedly. It

 V.  "th:is:,.Atha't..is soughtto be challenged in this petition.

it    counsel for the petitioner contends

 below has misinterpreted the scope of

 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957

 a._d'(her'eiAf1e1fter referred to as the Act, for brevity). It is



contended that the court could impose penalty only

when an insufficiently stamped document is in1po'u1*1ded

by the court for being insufficiently 

requisite stamp duty was paid before   

filed into court ~-- even accordingito Zthe;  'below the

question of impounding the?docunie.nt did  :--i_ise_::§ in 

which event the imposition  on  ground the
belated payment of   on documents
only when they are soughttoVbe:V.oacte_d«:iigT)on, would lead

to a. loss of;-.,re\§etn.ue 'Uto'the__..  an extraneous
considerlationiifon {%7l"'1iC_T.l"l>tVV.:'t11€ penalty is imposed" in the
absenceof «any provision in that regard. It is

contended  the samdevis a gloss placed on the Act by

.   ..... 

 the learned counsel for the

j respondentvcontends that in terms of Section l0 of the

stamp duty paid would be indicated on the irist.rL1meni;. In the absence of any endorsement as regards the alleged payment of the deficit stamp duty «- there is no payment in the eye of law. Further of Section 17, all documents chargeable be stamped before or at the time""of«exe.cutiolnQ._ :He7ncHe':

even if any duty is paid subseuvquently accordance with the Sectional"tais aiso that Section 31 provides avprocedulrer forVdetern1finati'on of the proper stamp duty payable on-an insutfffiyciently stamped document, is also the petitioner.

5. "co:nte:htions -- the point for considerationlylby.'t-his as to whether the court below was-iaprightll' in having held that thought the stamp duty was paid on the aAgre--e_ment.pc«f:V'sa1e before filing the suit M since a deﬁcit before filing the suit -- the petitioner gwas to penalty '?

" There is no dispute that the agreement of sale 9.6.2004 recorded the delivery of physical possession of the immovable property covered thereunder to the petitioner and attracted th\--e"'«stiaiit1p duty prescribed under the Scheduie However, the document was insu.-ﬁ'1ei--e.ntIj{ stari1~ped.-.7It'hVeVA petitioner had paid the def"ic_it'--A.A_d * Rs.19,550/-- as on 14.3.20o8c;jupst gm 'of the 1' suit;

7. Ur1c1er._the ﬁ€t§:..::a,I1" which any instruments" by means of stamps indicated on such instrur;ien_t,s {Sectiori _i'@}_: ' ., ' 8, Pa§}i11eht..of duty by cash is permissible, V' "imp tia.e'ni1am;er proxfided under Section 10A. prescribes the time of stamping j instri;u}:1e.;1ts under Section 17, the same reads as V A jifodllowssz "l7. Instruments executed in the Stat:e_..___ of Karnzitakan All instruments chargea_b~I.e"-.._<'l*-._ with duty and executed by any person State of Karnataka shall be st.ampedl"bVefo1fevl" l or at the time of execution,» (Provided that nothing*~..jf1-..thiseeotioh ' shall apply to an ins§~;¢:;iinent "111.res1"3_eoi;V>lof' l which stamp ciuty hAas:'b.ee'nj' paid-v.L1nde1~ Section 10«A].

10. Froni section -- the subsequent eitroid the document being u,g,lhen the same is sought to be of the suit, does not render" the as being' one which is "duly tiizder the provisions of the Act. The stamped" as deﬁned under 2 [1]((:} of _ the "'1'\et.,-._" lreéild with Section 17 would render it an H H K stamped document.

11. The conduct of the petitioner would in_c_i_icate that the parties were not doubtful of the actu%1i:'f"c1j;ity payabie ~ for it has been determined in V' the schedule by the petitioner hivn3;s'eEf.¢

12. The said docu1nei*iet.___havingl'been.'j3r§3d_uces:i in court it ought to have been Section 33 of the Act, of deﬁcit stamp duty, by. the in tenns of Section be permitted to rely on the for oniy on payment of penalty as Saection 34. The section is extracted 'fqrtready reference. "--"34. Hllnélrunzents not duly stamped in evidence, etc., - No instrument with duty shall be admitted in evvskcieitee for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority llhto receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such 9 person or by any public oﬂicer, unless such.__ instrument is duly st"amped:"

(emphasis supplied) Provided that »» XXXXX X

13. It is clear from "d§.t,0I_,!jy is the document inadmissible court cannot also act upori itgi' on the basis of reliefs by way of temporary before judgement etc., W ELIAQ penalty are paid. V are no. provisions either under the Act or "V""vthe"l:ii§ar:B:ata.ka Rules, 1958, which enabled the the deficit stamp duty at his will, long aiter4_thev-eiéejeiintion of the document. 1"5,[1~Hence the lower court is hereby directed to u"1'1T'1i}}('3t:l'I'l(i the document in question f0_rthwit:h., lrx -\ \./' 10 notxvithstandilig that duty may have been paid_.-Qn it belatedly and act upon it or admit the same in if the petitioner seeks to rely upon it, only-'..(:J.:f1 of the penalty imposed.

16. The petition is .»edi.sm1s'se_d" t'i:.e__a15ox}e observation.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court