Karar Ahmed S/O Late N A Khan vs Rajanna S/O Venkata Hanumaiah on 4 June, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Karar Ahmed S/O Late N A Khan vs Rajanna S/O Venkata Hanumaiah on 4 June, 2009

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

gun: ..  V

an-'::*§{~'.w.n2'x>a?I\'s§_," .-
3?" I" ',

EVP N0.1v59Q3!29G'?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA:5:-é§A:;:i--i2j'E*,T'  

DATED THIS THE 4TH nAY_;c}%a',,JuN::;"2t}c§i.§A.     

BEFORE  Q &
mm I-IOITBLE DR. JIIs'r1r:_E«.1s;. 3iiAii1TaA§jx1_&A$z,AL3 i
WRIT PE'I'i'I'ION NO.  
nsmmmn J V'  A  V

KararAhmed,   '
Sic). Late N.A.Kha_p..,   :_ V     :
Aged ab0ut51 years, }T*«1't:>,\'"S()4,'-- 8'4? Cr0sS,._  
293 Magin, Rosh,af1{"}QICr:ji_:, V      '
Tsiak Nagar,  1;.  %  
Balzgalore, -------- _    
Represented by G933 Homer.'  _

SIi.A.R.VaSa11th  M   * " Petitioner.

(By Smt.MamLéith§1   for petitioner)

 Rajanna; Simv:'Venkata E-Ianumaiah,

Agegi'V'a'b£:iutv   R] 0. Muddnapalya,
Viswancgdam 'Post, Diﬁce,

-- V'   Eangaiaqm Not'£h-Tsluk,

Bangalore -v'--. 56GF{}9 1.

"   S/0. Rajaxana,
" .Agr:"cI.Vab-<3z;1t 29 years,

R;-sidiﬁg*With 13* Reapondent;

' 'f3; -~Ra':mach2;rzdra,

Sf eﬁajanna, Aged about 25 years,

LL " "Rtsiding with 1*' Respondent.



wp NO.158¥}3i2OG?

4. Narasimahiah,

S/0. Late Dyavaiah, Aged 65 yeam,
R] 0. K. G.1.akkendaha]1i,
Dasanapura Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk,

Bangalore.

5. Bharathi, W/0. Malleshappa,
Aged about 39 years,

No. 180, Bharti Nagar, 
BEL Layout, Auajananger, '
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore - 560 091. V  H
6. Latha, W/0. M.C.H:'1muménﬂi1a"Raju,   
Aged 37' years, N9'. 1"f?._     V .
Sunkacia Katie, 1 . --f   ~ é   '
Bangalore Nexftll 'I"a1iik;--I;;:__  -. "

Bangalore.  " '~ 

7. Rangaswﬁmf S} 0.  «'
Aged 32 years, '*Mud.c1a1';apa1y'a; 
'Vishwanetf:_d_am, Baxggaloie Honk Taluk.

     ..... .. V

'I3.c:':yuty. Commissibgcr of Stamps,
Rajajinagar 'Fd_s'i:ficg Flajajinagar,
 .--  1%')_;v V  Respondents.

 (By Sri GM bfagabhushana, Adv, for
 4  Nagajahg Adm, fbr R~1 to R---3)

" " 'v{£iySzi.M.B.Chandra Chooda, Adv, fer RI and F.'-5)
 RB Venkataramana, HCGP, for R'-8)

" .'  This Writ Petition is ﬁled praying to quash the order dated.

 "i2~Z"4()9-2()(}7 in O S 5448] 2096 on the file of the XXIV Addl. City
 Civil, Judge, Bangalore City, vide Am1<"::xmB~F", whﬂe recordizzg the
H evidence of PW 1 mﬁxsing to mark the agreement of Saki dated 05-



WP R0,} 5803200?

05499? vitie Annex"u1e~A executed by R1 to 3 in favour 6 and 7
agreeing and undertaking to convey. V. 

This Petition coming on for Orders this day, 

the following:

ORDER

The petitioner] plaintiff in 0 s N§,s4;f451Ti:2be$ -oi:

XXIV Addl Civil Judge, Banga}o1e*tCity, isittbefore I Articles 226 as 227 of the COI£StuﬁTt§.'1l?»i{E-I; of ﬁzfaying for quashing the order *«A:1nexu1e~A passed sustaining gthe agreement of sale dated 5.5.1997 d11zi11g"t¥;1e §5f-.e§'i.<ience of PIW-1.

2. For the"'purpose oif_COI--':§76I1iEtIlC€t and better undezstaneiizzg, and thev....:e:;-:p0nde11t Nos. 1 to 7 are hereinafter ;€ef€.f:I"1'e§" -to plaintiﬁ' anti 'the defendant Nos.1 to 3?' as Varrayezi the

3.""The..__'bi'ief facts of the case leading to the ﬁling of the Wzit W H " Lmayhe stated as under:

Lt WP N0.§5803»'2007 The petitioner/plaintiff ﬁled a suit in O S No.5445/2006 against respondent Nos.I to 7 for declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suitgland bearing Sy. No.79 measuring 4 acres and 3 guntas and ., land bearing No.80 measuring 1 acre and 37 guntas ii at Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapurav~Hob--l.i., ll Taluk, and permanent injunction restraining d.eifendantiNos,4"

5 from interfering with the plaintiffs"ggeaceiftrl posses'sio'I1w» and enjoyment of the suit lands.

The petitioner/ plaintiff purchased the suit lands from and.u"flunder a registered sale deed. The defendants haxfe respective Written statement. Issues have been framed...

During the course of examination in chief of P.W--1 an agreementﬂof dated 5.5.1997 said to be executed by defendlant'i.N_o1sV.'1:lltoV__3'l~iri'liavour of defendant Nos.6 and 7 in respect lfolf the suitil."schedu'ie'llproperty was sought to be marked. But, the for defendant Nos.1 to 5 objected to marking of the WP NO. l 380352007 agreement of sale on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped. It was further contended that the District Registrar has levied less penalty though it attracts levy of penalty ten of the duty.

In View of objection raised by deferidarit' «1\I_os.1.; ithias been held that the document is jinsufﬁciiently if therefore the plaintiff has to pay penaltyr--lten 'per law. This is impugned in thisvwrit Petlitiorif if

4. Sri s P Shankar, lea'rnedli'pSeiiiot_ c¢~.u.x';'si;~':1 appearing for the petitionerzyiisiibmits 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, the has levied the duty and I3-enal'é3T.and l5étj~'r.f1ln,t.'--of"vtihe';same has been endorsed on the dof(g:ii~titi1.ent-;:t.lll'Tiherevfore,iiithemagreernent of sale dated 5.5.1997 is sufﬁcientlyl it can be marked in evidence. It is further Vi i"s'ubmitted,_.thatvtheplaintiff is claiming his right on the basis of the .4i_iAre,gi!s'tegred saieideed and the agreement of sale deed dated 5.5.1997 y.ra:si'"sought to be marked to establish that the vendors of the . l--pla_intiffi§viz., defendants No.6 and 7 had entered into an agreement 3 WP No.1 5803/2007 of sale of the suit schedule property with defendant Nos.l to 3, but the trial Court erred in refusing to mark the document.

5. On the other hand, Prof. Nagabhushana, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that as the District Registrar has not properly exercised his right under the Stamp Act, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 had ﬁled 21 Revision ~ Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,»~B<3I1g8_lo1?é"~. No.5 / 2007-08 as against defendant Nos.6 d'nd=:he been disposed of by order dated 17.2.2999 rem'ee.d1n;gi"d;e«--.mVerteri to the District Registrar and Deputy Co"rnmission.er.o_f Stamps to levy interest delay in payment of duty and penalty that the document sought to be _marl{"edv_:in.tl~1eii'eiridence of P.W--1 was insufficiently stamped ;_tehex"C'oU;'rt has rightly refused to mark the documentland'*'the.re..g_is"..no illegality or inﬁrmity in the impugned V 'order.

Sri~~ Cl;1andrachooda, learned Counsel appearing for 'irtespondeVnt"'Nos.4 and 5, adopts the arguments of the Counsel for C. Nosl to 3.

;

tee WP NO. I 580332007

7. Learned Government Pleader submits that the duty and penalty levied on the document is Correct and the impugned order is not sustainable in law. V

8. By way of reply, Sri S P Shankar for submits that in pursuance of the order made.~E;y.:':'thie"~.:ChiefiC' Controlling Revenue Authority in respondent No.8 / District Registrar,' has passed arf. on 16.4.2009 and determined that the petitioner/hasi to pay Rs. 1 192,979/-- towards interestion aoicouiyirvitl.of,i_d*elpay in 'payment of duty and penialitytheyiagreententiiuof sale. Therefore, the petitioner/Plaintiff, on 13s';é"éj1;p2o09:i"=pa;d a sum of Rs.4,00,000 and prayed for pervmissionniito_pay'*.thei balance amount in three equal instaillmen'tisi':' A. Qﬁltt, is erystalclear from the above that the requisite duty and paid on the document and still the V71'petitioner/plaintiff'has to pay Rs.7',92,979/-. Be that as it may, the before"'the Court is Whether the trial Court was justified in E ii. , WE' NO. 1580352007 refusing to mark the agreement of sale dated 5.5.1997 in evidence of PW--1.

10. My answer to the above question is in the negative for the following reasons:

The petitioner/ plaintiff is a stranger to the agreem.e_n't.9datedf'< 3 5.5.1997. The petitioner/ plaintiff is not Claiming any9'ri:ghtV'under'-9.':

the agreement of sale and he beinga stra_nger"t0g_ the .;C0in"tr_aQt,-.:}?1e"". cannot enforce the same. The plaintiff sought rnark agreement to sell in his evidence to 'prove that. ghisxfzenidvorsi had entered into ar1"agreetfdent::fr;'f "defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Since the plaintif" right nor enforcing the agreement of salei,l4tlf1ev.sam1e have been marked for collateral ptir-p.ose was"-insufficiently stamped. It is relevant to mentioijtliat the.c'a,sevof defendant Nos.l to 3 is that they had not 7"».gg_Aexecuted9i.the of sale dated 5.5.1997 in favour of iddefengdant and 7. The plaintiff who is not a party to the ; aigfee_1ne11tlo.f sale, has paid the duty and penalty on the agreement sale and the payment of the same by him cannot be questioned )3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court