IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31%'? DAY OCTOBER " H BEFORE:-' THE H()N'BLE MRJUSTICE 1éA:_a:* §1bHAI~: %%A1*ez.e*,.13s:>s'r : / i WRIT PET¥'£'ION NUMBEI§§'3r§35p_/gbosEM-€190) 8 Em: _ % BASAPPA, -- V s/0. BHIKKAPPA' LAMANT," % . ; AGED 48 YEARS',g§f*CC::=.AGRI'CU'L;fijRE.,_. :A R/O. HIRE-'G-U.LAE3ALTA'NDA, 'I'AL&i)IS'i': PETITIONER. (SE1. 9.}; uKUI;KARf§iI;w_§§D3;f ;}«. V-§§§K29s§SA?PA, %%%%% ' -.51'-3, SANGANABASAPPA HALABAR, ' V TSINCEK DECEASED, BY ms ms. 2. srs)rT._§:;§;;1#§éVwA, W] O; SANGANABASAPPA HALABAR, AG~EDj_65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, TR] (DEJADRAMKUNTI, ~ 'ML & DIST: BAGALKQT. ' 3,; Sim'. BHARAMAWWA, T W/0. PARASAPPA HALABAR, AGED 40 YEARS, occ: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JADRANfl(UNTI, TAL 845 DIST: BAGALKOT. },Ari'«l 4. SANGAWWA 5. SANGAPPA 5. MANJUNATH RESPONDENTS 4, 5 as 6 f«'RE._SONS..OF V V
PARASAPPA I-IALABAR, s1N»:;E’M1NoRs,
REP. BY THEIR GUARDIAN MQTEIER ”
ALL ARE R/O. JAB’RAMKU_N’I§l,, ” M
TAL. 35 DIST: BAGALKOT’. RESPONDENTS.
THIS WRfF’}1j?ETiT!ON IS FILED’ U-P¥~{){3R ARTICLES 226
& 227 CE -“awe’~-.(:{:»N:3T3:fI’ufr1€}N-,01?» INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE :p’§3DER 4033;» £_.A.-NOgVII DATED 24-06-2008
PASSED.’ V…B_’i”~._’I’£~I’f:”3:,_ ..PRL. CIVI-L.,._JUDGE (SFLDN) COURT
BAGALKOT 1rM).s.’N0.43;_2o05 AT ANNEXURE—‘F’.
‘I’xIA-‘¥IS’– FET1Tié;\L”–~¢0hiING ON FOR PRELIWNARY
I~iEARIN(}”,'<'1fH!S :;AY,.TH§;.»LVcoUI?r MADE THE FOLLOWING:
~ ' '' "ORDER
OS 43/2005 aggrieved by the order
of the Pr}. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bagaikot,
diéfefidants' IA No.7 under Sccs.33 to 35 of the
Stamp Act, 1957, for short Act, and directing
to pay stamp duty and penalty of Rs.
V' 2§28,8GO/ – on the agecmcnt of saiqthc suit dacumcm, has
M
presented this petifion invoking A1't.22_'_7* 4' .
Constitution oflndia.
2. The suit insfituted bjthg pxéinfiajtpefifiquag fo r »
specific performance qf an §_3_.4§1′”~’:’,<::1:u:1.;;nt" 'cf': dated
10.2.2004, Annexure that the
entire sale consiicrafiqn by the
petitioner of the
immovabk: V what remains is the
exccutiéfin 'V vendors. The plaint
avcnnc1V'it:sv_"turI;t1ethcr or not pozwession of
the sait ' u.:?as tit:vlAi#;'c1ed, howcvcr, the prayer is that
' " possession and enjoymcnt
L._.6i'_t1uie Though in the Written statement the
dciivexy of possession of the suit property
to the" nevcrthcicss, the defendants filed I.A.Ne.'7
6.6.2007 under Secs.33 to 35 ofthe 'Act', to direct
{he plainfiff to pay the penalty and stamp duty on the
agwcement of sale. In the memo of fiacts accompanying the
application it is specifically averted that as possession 91'
BK
the suit schedule property was delivered to ~
agreement of sale attracts ' V
application was opposed by fi11n' Vlg stgiteéinéflt'
of the plaintiff, Anncxun: '~t1ic fach§.id.i.i.'»9f "
been put in possession of the «. . §
3. The trial court recital
in the iiof document, that
possession éf J “:.3wés delivcmti to the
the decision of this
court vs. Smt K Vijayaiakshmi and
others, 2906(3) KCCR 1915 and the decision
.. M T Kamalalnma and another
2007 Kar.4752 held that the agreement of
in qaesgzaén attracted the provision of Art.5(c) (i) of
_the find accordingly, ailowed the application, after
A ‘ _” the duty and pcnaity payable on the said
Hi%;st:z11mcnt.
K…’
Act attracting stamp duty payable on the convcgfénég _
agreement of sale cannot but be txcaficd as «
pmpcr stamp duty payable théxjcoiil–T is
conveyance (No.20) on the market va_1’fie: cf %»
while Explanation II says wl:Vie1?.2′: ‘V-éu1:”§’:.f.e<;u£:11t1y
conveyance is executc:t1;_._'3:V.'*1c
on the agreement' shall {flees not in any
Way give an" éfifiba . the stamp duty
subsequeniiy.
‘I’hev –o1:dcrV court, in my considered
opinion,_ H cam.m. 11eV:V’V-faA111_;l:e’t*3.”bLVWith. The writ petition is
‘V and injected.
Sd/-}___
Judge