Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.35/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short 'the civil Court'), has filed this writ petition calling in question the order dated 16.09.2019 and the report dated 03.09.2019 of the District Registrar for Stamp, Haveri District. The present petition is filed in the following circumstances.

3 The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.35/2017 for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.06.2015 allegedly executed by the respondent in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to transfer the lands in R.S. No.8/2, 306 and 337 of Hansabhavi village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District, for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. The respondent is yet to file his written statement. The suit being listed for evidence, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1. Insofar as marking the agreement dated 11.06.2015, the civil Court, at the time of recording chief-examination on 17.06.2019, has adjourned the suit to 15.07.2019 to hear on the payment of stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner, on the next date of hearing i.e. on 15.07.2019, has filed an application under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act (for short, 'the Act') read with Section 151 of CPC for referring the agreement dated 11.06.2015 (for short, 'the agreement') to the jurisdictional District Registrar for Stamp for determination of the stamp duty and penalty payable.

4 The civil Court, by its order dated 15.07.2019, has allowed this application and directed the office to send the sale agreement to the District Registrar for Stamps, Haveri, to assess the duty and penalty. The District Registrar for Stamps, Haveri, on receipt of communication from the office of the Civil Court, has filed the report as per Annexure-L. This report is significant for two reasons. The District Registrar, after reading the terms of the agreement dated 11.06.2015, has opined that because of certain recitals in the agreement there is delivery of possession of the subject property in part performance; as such, the agreement dated 11.06.2015 would be chargeable under Article 5(e)(i) of the Act. Insofar as the market value, the District Registrar for Stamps, Haveri has opined that the total value of the subject property would be Rs.23,37,825/- as against the agreed value of Rs.35,00,000/-. The District Registrar for Stamps, Haveri, has also concluded that stamp duty payable is Rs.1,75,000/- and the penalty payable is Rs.17,50,000/-. Thus, the petitioner will have to pay a sum of Rs.19,25,000/-. The civil Court, on receipt of this impugned report, has passed the following order:

"Pltf absent Sri. MKB P/T to pay duties & penalty as ordered by the District Registrar Haveri. Call on 14/10."

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil Court's impugned order dated 16.09.2019 and the impugned Report by the District Registrar for Stamps, Haveri, cannot be sustained in law on two grounds. Firstly, it is settled law that the nature of a document will have to be decided by the civil court and it could not have been delegated to the District Registrar. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Black Pearl Hotels Private Limited Vs. Planet M.Retail Limited1 in support of this proposition. Secondly, the opinion of the District Registrar, Haveri, that the possession of the subject property has been delivered to the petitioner in part performance of the agreement to sell is totally extraneous. The learned counsel submits that the recitals of the agreement alone should be considered in deciding whether the nature of transaction between the petitioner and the respondent is an agreement simplicitor or a sale agreement with delivery of possession in part performance of the agreement. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omprakash Vs. Laxminarayan and others2.

6 The learned counsel for the respondent justifies the order of the civil court as well as the report of the District Registrar for Stamps, Haveri District, placing reliance upon the terms of the sale agreement asserting that the petitioner cannot contend that the agreement dated 01.06.2015 is a sale (2017)4 SCC 498 2 (2014)1 SCC 618 agreement simpliciter, and in fact, the agreement is an agreement to sell with delivery of possession in part performance thereof. As such, the petitioner inevitably is obliged to pay not only the deficit stamp duty but also the penalty of ten times in the light of the different provisions of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is justified and does not call for any interference.