Imamsab S/O Dongrisab Kaladagi vs Dastgilrsab S/O Imansab Kaladagi on 25 June, 2018

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Imamsab S/O Dongrisab Kaladagi vs Dastgilrsab S/O Imansab Kaladagi on 25 June, 2018

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                            1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

              ON THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

       WRIT PETITION No.103544 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

IMAMSAB S/O DONGRISAB KALADAGI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KOLHAR
TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
DISTRICT: BIJAPUR
                                             ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DASTGIRSAB S/O IMANSAB KALADAGI
AGE: 90 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KOLHAR
TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
DISTRICT: BIJAPUR
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

1(A)   BUDIMA
       W/O DASTGIRSAB KALADAGI
       AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
       R/O KOLHAR
       TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
       DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR

1(B)   MEHBOOBI
       W/O MALIKSA SHIRUR
       AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
       R/O KOLHAR
                             2



       TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
       DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR

1 (C) IMAMBU
      W/O MALIKSAB KUBNAVAR
      AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
      R/O KOLHAR
      TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
      DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR

1(D)   ALIMA
       D/O DASTGIRSAB KALADAGI
       AGE: 55 YEARS
       OCC: HOUSE HOLD & AGRICULTURE
       R/O KOLHAR
       TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
       DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR

1(E)   ABDULSAB
       S/O DASTGIRSAB KALADAGI
       AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
       R/O KOLHAR
       TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
       DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR

1(F)   HUSNAMA
       W/O MAKTUMSAB CHOUDHARY
       AGE: 51 YEARS
       OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
       R/O KOLHAR
       TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
       DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR

1(G) REHMATBI @ MAIRUNABI
     W/O BASHEERSAB CHOUDHARY
     AGE: 48 YEARS
     OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
     R/O KOLHAR
     TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
     DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR

1(H) GAIBUSAB
     S/O DASTGIRSAB KALADAGI
                             3



       AGE: 45 YEARS
       OCC: AGRICULTURE
       R/O KOLHAR
       TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
       DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR

1(I)   HAJRATMA
       W/O ABDULSAB HALLADMANI
       AGE: 42 YEARS
       OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
       R/O GUDDUR, TALUK HUNGUND
       DISTRICT: BAGALKOT

1(J)   MAMATAJ W/O MAKBOOLSAB
       MILITARY @ BAGWAN
       AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
       R/O BADAMI, TALUK: BADAMI
       DISTRICT: BAGALKOT

1(K)   PEERMAHUMMAD
       S/O DASTGIRSAB KALADAGI
       AGE: 38 YEARS
       OCC: AGRICULTURE
       R/O KOLHAR
       TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
       DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(K))

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E, VIZ., THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2013
BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR., DN.,) AT BASAVANA BAGEWADI
PASSED IN O.S.NO.366 OF 2010 REJECTING I.A.NO.4 AND
FURTHER ALLOW THE SAID I.A.NO.4, ETC.


       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  4



                              ORDER

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance. I.A.No.3 was filed by the defendant under Order XIII Rules 3 and 8 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to impound the document. I.A.No.4 was filed by the plaintiff under Sections 33 and 34 of the Stamp Act seeking to pay deficit stamp duty. By the impugned order, both the I.As., were rejected. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiff.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That rejection of the plea to pay deficit stamp duty is improper. The document should be impounded and deficit stamp duty should be collected subject to admissibility of the document.

3. The same is disputed by the respondents.

4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that the appropriate relief is called for. 5 When the document is sought to be marked, necessarily the same would require to be impounded and deficit stamp duty and penalty has to be collected. Therefore, rejection of both I.As., are improper.

5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 15.07.2013 passed on I.A.Nos.3 and 4 In O.S.No.366 of 2010 is set aside. I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant and I.A.No.4 filed by the plaintiff are allowed. Orders pursuant to the order passed on I.A.Nos.3 and 4 are also set aside. The trial court is directed to impound the document, impose deficit stamp duty and penalty and thereafter, proceed for further orders.

All the contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB* CT: RRJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court