Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ratnavva W/O Alagouda Gadennavar, vs Shri. Bhimappa Basappa Tevaramani on 30 January, 2014
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.66144/2011 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.RATNAVVA W/O ALAGOUDA GADENNAVAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O GUNDEWADI-591 262,
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.G.NAGANURI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. BHIMAPPA BASAPPA TEVARAMANI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NADI-INGALGAON-591324,
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.C.BHEEMARADDI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED:23/07/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ATHANI IN O.S.NO.119/2003 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, which has impounded the document, which is styled as relinquishment deed, dated 03.12.2001 and directing the payment of duty and penalty and also holding that the plaintiff is entitled to use the instrument for proving collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.
2. The argument is as the said document is between the brother and the married daughter, the said document is to be valued as conveyance and the duty and penalty is payable as such. However, the Court below has held that the duty payable is under Article 45(b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which is not correct. According to the learned counsel, once the daughter gets married, :3: starts living with her husband, ceases to be a member of the family and when there is a partition in the family by way of a registered instrument, even joint family comes to an end. Therefore, in such an event if a party is relying on a document, which is not registered, which is not stamped, when the Court impounds the document, the duty payable would be as if it is a conveyance. Therefore he submits, to that extent the order requires to be interfered with.
3. The word used in Article 45(b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act is that, any instrument, whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property, where the release is between the family members. The duty payable is Rs.1,000/- irrespective of the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of the said instrument. The explanation makes it clear that the family in relation to a person for the purpose of clause (b) means husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, brother (wife/children of predeceased brother), :4: sister (husband/children of predeceased sister), wife of a predeceased son and children of a predeceased son or predeceased daughter. The object of the said amendment, which was brought about by Act No.6 of 2001, with effect from 01.04.2001 is to encourage the execution of the document and getting it registered among the family members and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was fixed as Court fee. The explanation is added to explain, who are all the members of the said family, who are entitled to the benefit of the said stamp duty. It is clearly mentioned that sister and brother constitute a family, the marriage of any one of them would not put an end to their status of the members of the family for the purpose of Article 45(b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. In that view of the matter, the trial Judge was justified in directing the payment of duty and penalty in terms of the aforesaid provisions.
4. The instrument is not registered. Under an instrument when there is a transfer of interest in a :5: immovable property, the value of which is more than Rs.100/-, it requires compulsory registration. The document is not compulsorily registered. Therefore, a party relying on the document would not be entitled to the legal effect on a registered document. However, for any other purpose, which is permitted in law i.e., for collateral purposes, which can be looked into and that is what precisely what the trial Court has held. Therefore, it all depends upon for what purposes, is it collateral purpose or the main purpose and decide the necessity to rely on the said document to decide the rights of the parties. Mere marking of an unregistered document would not render that document as evidence. In fact, the question whether the document requires registration or not, if not registered, what is the legal effect and what is the collateral purpose, which can be looked into, has to be decided by the Court at the time of appreciation of the evidence and deciding the case on merits.
:6:
5. Therefore, I do not see any justification to interfere with the said order. No merit, dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*