Smt Jayamma W/O Nagappa vs Sri Narasimhaiah S/O Ramappa on 31 August, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 318T DAY OF AUGUST 2m-Q
BEFORE   

THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE AN.  "OO"'»i'fDA.._

WRIT PETITION No.22S/2'0'10   
BETWEEN:  A A A A A 

SMT JAYAMMA W/O NAGAPPA'  A

AGED AEOUT 50 YEARS  .

OCC: AGRICULTURIS'F,,x  _  
R/ O GATTARAGADAHA_LLI V*1LLAGE_ A ,  " ~ . _
ROBERTSONPET HOBLIK-. --   _ 
BANGARPETTQ.,KOLAR»D1S1',_  "

REP. BY       " 
SR1.NAOApA'r ]'--O~':SRI«.MUN_IYAPPA  »

AGED' ABOUT. 38 '.:i'EARS_j' _

R/O GATTA.RAGAD1SAE£_,1'arIL1AOE

pEDDAri-->A1;.L1POSTa  '  

ROBERTSONPET HOBLI 

BANOARPET 'I'ALUK  ' " -
KO:;ARA.DIsTR1c_T  PETITIONER

A 1' {Bi M;/SBivf,r§:ERAT>1>A 82: ASSOCIATES FOR
 T --v.13"yEEEA'p--1éA & SR1 MURALI N, ADVS)

AND,_;  %  A

 SR1 EARASIMHAIAH S/O RAMAPPA
v SINOE DEAD BY HIS LRS

 A H PADMAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAEAH

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,



2 RAMESH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

3 RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE NARASIMAIIALAI~I._.''''_~ 9:  
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS  

4 RUKMANI D/O LATE =3 'V
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ' '=  
W/O VENUGOPAL

5 LAKSHMIDEVI D /O  
AGED ABOUT 36      
W/O SRINIVASAPPA "

6 PARVATHI D /O LA_T;E N;ARASIMI'IA1AH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSAI.,I.v,:'O__RACTIIU
D/O      
AGED"AD.ORUT;--37   ' ' »
W/O'A51'im;'rATH'%F_PA'S_' A'  

8 SMT.  LATE NARASIMHAIAH
A..GE:D ABOUT 31 YEASR '

UNMARRIED'    ~

V ALL  REDDAPALLI VILLAGE,
,,  ROBERTSQNPET HOBLI,
" B.ANGARPET'TQ;,

" ~.  I§OLAR'«DIST.  RESPONDENTS

 .(BTi-AAA'/vS"'I%V_R'V§3z'I5 R ASSOCIATES FOR R15} 1

THISWRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

  227 OE':-THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
 TOR TI?IE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.76/2000 ON THE FILE OF

*  CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN} AT K.G.F.; QUASH THE ORDER
  'DATED 19.12.1999 ON I.A.NO.23 MADE IN O.S.NO.76/2000
 .. _..ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN] AND



PRINCIPAL JMFC. KGF VIDE ANNEXURELF IN THE WRIT
PETITION.

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary~..hearing
in 'B' group, this day. the Court made the f01l.owi.nge.5'Ve. ~ 

ORDE_;1g__

Plaintiff is the petitioner} :'j1Res;5en'de'nt:e[1"'ia;éi1vi.the 

defendants. Suit is for_l's.p_ecifie v_perfo.rin.aI'iwce of the
contract i.e., agreement date-dVV:2vl_.O--7A.1999»-_.S11§it has been
contested by the defe'1idan't.sV§'t'»by  'written statement.

Plaintiff has" evidence. When the

suit  "at:iV5.theI'fVof defendants' evidence. a lease
agreerhent  was sought to be introduced.

The.}.earned._:VCounselffor the plaintiff objected to the

-   ofyythe  document on the ground that. it is

I  i11_eufx'icien'tly.stainped and it requires registration.

 ~.A:"I;A.No.23 was filed to impound the said lease

 agreerrient and to direct the defendants to pay the duty

   .anci':pena1ty of Rs.55,4~80/«~. Objections having been filed

/

fa



to the application, the trial Court upon consideration of
the matter has held that. though the lease agreement

requires payment of duty and penalty underof

the Stamp Act, since the same is beingp'?U.,Sed"~

collateral purpose, it held that,  n'ot._':b'e,  

of duty and penalty. In arriying  the said-t. thetrialp
Court has relied on the  of the Court in the
case reported at   The said order

has been questioned inthis   

3. I-?lear;;l."the=_1ear--ried=Counsel for the parties and

perused the   "  n
4.  The'- learnerl' Counsel appearing for the

respondents "would submit that, the defendants will pay

  duty.and.,pena1ty on the aforesaid document. The said

H su'a,m.issi_cn'~;,appears to have been made taking into

con'sid'e1jation catena of decisions of this Court and the

  Supreine Court, which have held that, duty and penalty

\

vi'

--

S

has to be paid even if, sustenance is sought to be derived

even for collateral purpose.

5. In View of the submission made by the iearned

Counsel for the respondents, it is unnecessary_A’for in;e..Ato

record any finding in the matter.

In the result, the writ

Impugned order stands quashed. a’.I_’he prayer
filed before the trial Court allowed}; Hiawever, the
document be imponiidiedi in “firfst”~instance. The duty

and pijenaltydfiayableyd’bebaicnlated by the trial Court and

made good by t’he.’4defen’.ciants.

‘ acedordingly,

Sd/-A
Iiidge