Sri N V Venkataraju vs Department Of Revenue on 10 September, 2008

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOE

DATED THIS THE 10%: IDAY OF SEPTEMBER     _

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. 19.1). D11~:A:<ARA:SI;M<:I¥i:1E;12fas;;i,=?i'icf:'.'?3 MkA'k, 

Amn, _ _ _   V
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE MoHA§§%%sHANTANAQoz;;1:AR

wager APPEAL NO. 2m my 3'1'/Iéisn 
BETWEEN: %       n 

Sri N.V. Ven}:atara}'uQ_-. H  -.

S/0 Vcnkatcgiowda,' " '~ %

44 years, "  4' _ ' 

Occ: Agricu1tz;n'e,W_._V . ._ A

R/0 No.307;G:, RP. Rea' Q

   ..... 

Mysozwe :)ismct;; APPELLANT

(By S}; mv.)

‘ (Sf Revenue,

Repby its Secretary,

-Ambcfzikar Vccdhi,

‘ . V _ _ BéI1g”aIore– I.

2. District Regstrar and
Deputy Commissioner of Stamp,

Chamarajanagar District,
Chamarajanagar.

3. Sub Registrar, A _ A _ _
Chammajaxmgar. ” _ _ ‘ ‘-~ ._

This Writ Appeal vi”s~~.__filcd Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court ‘sri:t.,a$idc the order of
the learned Single Judge in Wm P¢fition..Ndg7793/ 2008 dated
19.6.2008 etc. V I I

This Writi’Aj$peal’V_”– {j hearm g this
day, the made 11133

A E N T
% x {Deli\}érz{(1vv___1;y:P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.)

learned Government Advocate takes

“yzotice On ir:%;I’j¢I’espondex1ts.

Sri RC. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the

‘Vx&j’)’p5:l!.:ai§nt and Ms. Niloufer Akbar, learned Govemmem

1 L? ” for the respondents.

(3) The appeal is directed against the

19.6.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.7793/299$”-fivhfiwsir; the:

appellant/writ petitioner chaflerxgegi

respondent – Sub–Registrar date-bd _41.4.QO§:)8 refu$i;r.§§:tb ” ,

the document executed in his fafétgfby one-Sjfi . fifenkamsh
pertaining to the land 1 Hfiméasm-ing 1
acre 30 guntas situated taiuk on the
ground that mg ‘ (319; D11.) and cam,
j%i%% fi<»;.1&;g3 on 1. 12.2%? has
granted Injfiéxcfion against the vendor
of the appefiani '*§?ézikatesh rcstrainirg him from

alienafingg ti:-:=:. suit

(4} _§§tx is' "dispute that the Writ pefitioncr is not a

to"'i!1cv*.$éidT"'suit. The appellant had admittedly paid the

' and regfistration fw as per the pwvisions of

Stamp Act. The Sub-Reg’strar refused to

‘T . . _ _ the document to the appellant, who had purchased

the property from Venkatesh on the ground that the

has granted an order of Temporary Injunction”

Vendor of the appellant viz., Sri N. Venkatesh T. it

from alienating the suit propertyr

order dated 19.6.2008 while dlscfizissifigro die petition’,
reserved liberty to the petitiotnlerltto llvi’1:1_pleadV’hin’iself in the
said suit and to seek order and thereafter

to approach the S1.ib’–‘ release. jftlhe documents.

(5) En the appellant is not a
party to the property from one
Venkatesh. -and thellentire stamp duty and registration
law) thelfléfilllrespondent has no right to withhold

the by Venkatesh, particularly when the

l”~v.:llA’Sub-Reglistrar’isvllalso not a party to the suit. As there is no

for’v-releasing the documents, the 3rd respondent is

‘torelease the documents in favour of the writ petitioner

tavithiniour Weeks provided there is no arrears of stamp duty.

ll”‘~.ilp_l”‘Holvi’ever We make it clear that the right of the petitioner based

on the documents in question and the validity of the same shall
be subject to the result of the suit. The Writ Appeatishi
of aocordingly. V’ t H

Gss/–

‘V ;../
Index:Yes;;No V