IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO,:l.§E. DATED THIS THE 4?" DAY OF NOVEMBER, :20'::_o%: _f BEFORE IfIf*dI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUSO_'P.ALA'=f3OVVD_A ' WRIT PETITION NO.212:'06/2_d01O0 AND WRIT PETITION NO.2;I4.7_V3/20A10" (GiV':5~v:'CP_§v_1._H BETWEEN: " I " Smt. M.S.Manjula, W/O. Suresha, Aged about 30 years, Agricuiturést, . Rameshwara RO._ad;, Ramanahalli.E>:teTi§i_On', __ Chikmagaluir -- ,5-37 I _ PETITIONER (BY Sri K.P.AsOkur'rT:a,r,"fad-VA.) ' AND: 1. Banavasgegoewda @' ~ 5Bhavaiv-ieasegowda, """ VS/O. iate Randgegewda, Aged adb'Out*-4' S ..ydears5. .__Smt..'H»e'rI1av.atiT§_, .;- W/O. Ba'nav~.aseg'Owda, Aged about 3.9 years. ' N .1 'BO'thA'a're_residéng at 'Mar-IAAev_i|_Iage and post, V Ambit: Hobli, "ChiHkrhagalur Taiuk. RESPONDENTS
V-(By-.Sri Prakash M.H. Adv. for R]. & R2 and
Copy served to Sri Zaheer Ahmed, AGA)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set~~-asi~d__e’ i:l_n_e~.
order dated 29.6.2010 made by the Civil _.A’.’?udg,e”v..()’3i.l,’.)’}–.
Chikamagalur on I.As 1 and 2 in O.S.90/20,1_0_l’eyyi.n’g _dut’y ._
of Rs.11,612/- and penalty of Rs.1.,1__6,12’0/–‘”(total”b_ein’g_,
Rs.1,37,732/–) Annexure ~ (3.
These petitions coming. on forlfurther’.fhea’ri’ng’.this”g
day, the Court made the follc-‘win_g:
oRDER.V’,,: K _ V
The petitioner against the
respondents seeking spyecific the contract
under the agreencienti-_’ or: Lisal’eA.::V’dVated.V:A 7.12.2005. The
agreement with the suit, the
trial co:vJVVrt’,”yii/i’i:i:I,5eV’_, & 2 filed seeking an
order offternporary with reference to the claim
made;’by_the pejtitioner that, the possession of the suit
0″‘pro,p’erty7lihaisrpeen delivered to him, has found that, the
dated 7.12.2006 contains the recital
,_ reglarding’ ‘d-eliyery of possession to the plaintiff and that,
00″4″~..:th.eV,agreernent is insufficiently stamped. It has impounded
.,th_e*»in.strument and has determined the deficit stamp duty
payable at Rs.11,612/- and the penalty at 10 times thereof
“Vi.e., Rs.1,16,120/–. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this
/7
w
4. In view of the rival contentions and the
of the writ petition, which I have perused, the
consideration is whether the impug_ned__order’_i’s”i’ii.Egé§i?._}_
5. Chapter 11 of the Karnatal§a’~’iStém_’p
(for short ‘the Act) provides ‘F’o_r”‘3.tamp’+;dVuties.~_SeCtio~r.’°3 is ” l
the charging Section. ;_C_hapteVAr_…yiVVi:fI’v..of=.the .A’ct..pro.\E/ides for
adjudication with regardiilto Chapter IV
deals with instruments.n’ot’.*d.uiv:’s.t3Fiii5ed…’:”Section 33 casts
a duty upo.n§’~~..§ to receive
evidence of a public office
before Zwhem produced, if it appears to
him that the stamped, to impound the
sam,e.{¢Sub~sectio~n:V(__2_)_of Section 33 of the Act lays down
tAhe«..p¥rocedu-rpe”~for undertaking the process of impounding.
‘provides that an instrument shall be
V –V inad’missibV|e”‘i.Vn evidence, if the same is not duly stamped.
K””4′”‘V.$ec~ti.o.&n provides that admission of an instrument where
–‘ j’_-nlotlltos be questioned. Section 37 provides for mode and
manner in which the instrument impounded is to be dealt
it with. \},
r
. ..o’_r.der’ways to costs.
In the aforesaid situation, the impugned»V..:’_ord-eér
passed by the trial court stands quashed to
payment of duty and penalty. If it
determination of the deficit stamp duty
same be determined and he ‘m_ay__be the
same. In case the plaintiff is_nlot~yvi’lt!..ivng,..thettriaslti court to
forward the impoundvedzisa|e__a.g;reenj_ent». to the Deputy
Commissioner concerned’,”‘as1env.is.aoedV«i:n:’»’S’ection 37(2) of
the Act. la-aaitlllthe receipt of the
certific-?Vt_€_.Vv_’ot:ifi_, ” by the Deputy
Commissioneirgfor’ in the suit. The suit
be revived onlyon__VreceiVpt’4Vo.fV suciitcertificate and the copy
ofvthte ordv.eii.’oi”_l’the DVe”puty____Commissioner so passed. The
wriAt*pvetiVt’i’onV stan.ds.,:d’is_posed off accordingly.
Inlthe circ.u’m;s;tances of the case, there shall be no
‘ Sd/3
Judas