1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15'?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
PRESENT
ma HONBLE MR. RD. OINARARAN, CHIEF J'LIS*rIf(;--Rj'~v.I
AND
THE I-IONBLE MR.JUSTICF;V.G.SABfiAfiIT.x'
WRIT APPEAL NO.3345/I?'Q0§'_O(OMO?S'fI,fi2I'§) _
BETWEEN:
MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 34 _ _ ..
w/O.L.L;u 23,-FSOUT 38
,Sf.'O.LATE.V.KE2MPALAH,
_ NC). "1 1. i-CROS»S, 1 MAIN,
" :3I¥iOV1P,rxm{A,. ' A "
BANGALORE. 4 86.
8.SR1NIV,,f&SA,
, V " S/V,O.LA'1"='E.KARiYAPPA,
"AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
_ R/-AT.NO. 105/15, 4"; CROSS,
ILMAIN, BHOVIPALYA,
..._BA,NGALORE W86.
9.V.RAJU.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
S / O .VEERABHADREGOW'DA.
I MAIN, SR1 KANTESHWARANAGAR.
MAHALAKSHM1 LAYOUT.
BANGALORE -- 86.
IO.D.S.SUB A,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
S/O.D.VENIQ°xTA REDDY.
R/AT.NO.1O241~, '77" CROSS.
I MAIN, VIJAYANANDANAGAR,
SHM1 LAYOUT, O
BANGALORE M 86.
I1.N.MUNIRAJU, .
AGED ABOUT 37 YEA'Rs;j;~ --
S/ONARAYANAPPA, __
R/O CI~iANNAYAKANAPAI..Y_A., '
DASANAPURA HOBLI, ;' '
BANGALOREs__NO':2I'H TL4\LUK:
'--R1;3SPONDENTS
[BY SR1 R.O1,KO'::;LiV, AND R-2
SR1 T.S¥£ESFiAGIR£__ RAQ. ,ADv';---ROR R3 TO R-1 1)
""*,=..>:x==22.~:==a==re:z<
THIS WRIT APPEZAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HEGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE;_ ORDER "PASSED IN WRIT PETITION 330.1795/2009
' ' _ DfxTED;.A'24;-7'/2009'; """
- O.1j'H:zs:.'vxrR;T APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
" DAY J., DELNERED THE FOLLOWING:--
NT
JUDGME
dated 24.77.2009 wherein the learned Single Judge of
K}
This appeal is flied by the petitioner in Writ
....I7-'*§eti1:iOn NO1795/2009, being aggrieved by the Order
4
this Court has declined to interfere with the certificate
dated 13.8.2008 issued by the 2"" respondent -.E5i'strict
Registrar and Deputy Commissioner
Bangalore Rural District at AnneXu1’€~A €§l_Sl_A’61f1dof.rsed long i
the agreement dated
petition. V l l V l l
2. The filed
W.P.l\lo.1795/2009 Nos.3 to
11 have filed 0.S.Nof.14S§.Q’/20.08 the Civil Judge
{Sr.Dn’.l];’lVlBarigalld’r’e Bangalore, against
the two minor children seeking
for specified”perforrnancelof the alleged agreement of sale
36′.6.”i3.O07 ilnmlrespect of agricultural land bearing
of Mallapura village, Kasaba Hobli,
Neiamaziigailealtaluk, measuring 4 acres 37 guntas. The
said a agreement was got up at the instance of
sglvrlesplondent I\Eos.3 to 11 and the brother of the
-»-pfetitioner. Respondent Nos.3 to 11 got signed the
agreement from the petitioner drawn up on a stamp
kin
paper of RS200/W and after filing of the suit, the
petitioner noticed from the said agreement that the
possession of the land is also shown as havinsggheven
handed over to respondent Nos.3 to 11. _”Ehere”*t¥:If’a-s
such agreement wherein the petitione’r hV’as..fvag1*e’ed “to
hand over possession nor ‘has_A_As”shes”- par1ed”s_s:”‘wAi’th
possession of the land. T191-e_:”8§f<* respondent to"?
have given a letter;-'.it:O the~ .2'n.<i'"~respondentVE–District
Registrar and Depflutyf' of Stamps,
Bangalore for~.s.s"_adjt1éi'ication of proper
starnjj" duty of Rs.20/– on
13.8.2zO(V)'8- andvspvthifjepv2"".:res~pondent, without holding any
enqjiiry or" r_nain'tainin§g any records in his office as
resqtiired "t1nderdsV'Iai7dQ, appears to have collected the
ai_Ieged"'–detéc~it:'.i.~stamp duty of Rs.16,20,100/~» from the
3Y¢i~..__respcndent and endorsed the same on the second
pagessoftsthe agreement dated 3.3.200"/Awherein, it is
is 'tipcertified inter alia that stamp duty has been collected
-»v–tinder Article 5[e) (i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
and that the document is duiy stamped. The certified
\w/”*>
copy of the agreement dated 6.6.200′? was filed in
O.S.No. 1490/2008. T he petitioner approached.Vthe~.,2ii<1
respondent with a request to furnish the
of the entire proceedings held on the ap_pIicati_on"fit1ed by"
respondent No.3 herein. 21"? re.spo"rid'eni;t._inforrned_th.e
petitioner that no proceedings… are held to".eo'i1eet..defieit*.0'
stamp duty and a surn of ¥'is._'coi:leeted by
looking into the copy -produced by the
party and eeiiified 0' computing the
stamp duty availabie to the
petitioner." copy of the application
filed .r2eepent1ettt.No:. §_3 dated 13.8.2008 before the sine
re9PDndenht"" niaddé: available and the same is
"V""'e.pr:}d.'tieed Antie§:ttre–B to the writ petition. It is
that being aggrieved by the said
end.orseme'fit,t writ petition is filed for quashing the said
"'endors'ei«i"1ent dated 13.8.2008 and the agreement of sale
6.6.2007, contending that the 2"" respondent has
-»v.nFot held any enquiry as contemplated under Section 31
of the Karnataka Stamp Act and has failed to exercise
‘\,.
\,_,>>
statutory power and therefore, the impugned
endorsement is liable to be quashed.
3. The learned Single judge, V’
learned counsel appearing for the p:etitionei’,..lthe’learned
counsel appearing for res’po__ndentsl”3
learned High Court Governrnent Header: appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and o1;:f_der”Vdjatied’b 24.7.2009, held
that Section 3.1. of Act does not
contemplat.-:-5., it llilmplroceeding and
if any” notice of the Deputy
Comrnissioner’ of the officer as to the stamp
duty. ,Charg’cahl’-e. said document and payable
thereoifi; the concerned authority Viz., the Deputy
determine the duty with which the
inst.rur}:1en:ti’~w’ chargeable and sub-section of (2) of
Section-331 would come into play only when the Deputy
. l ‘Comrnissioner is of the View that affidavit and some
-~–other evidence is required for determination of the
stamp duty payable and he can call upon the persenter
to produce such evidence and in the present case, sale
consideration under the agreement is .p”about
Rs.2,16,00,000/- Statement of objections
respondent No.2 indicating that the valt1_e:”‘refieLeted K
the agreement to sell is much
VEi.l1.1€ determined by the: _competent avultholrilty
hence, respondent No.2 did ‘necelssaiiy to call
upon the applicant evidence by
way of an affidavit aspptovihthe Value of the
land and was: co_nter.o.plated. The learned
Single ‘iJnldge’:iVffnrt:hVe1″ View of the decision of
the Homes in GOVERNMENT or
UTT¥*R PRAD.ESHrsANiD”oTHERs Vs. RAJA MOHAMMED
Amiiéi AH1\/IED K”H’ANll(AiR 1961 so 787), no limitation is
regalrding seeking of opinion as to the duty
payablerand accordingly, held that there is no merit in
petition and dismissed the same. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ
petitioner has preferred this writ appeal.
\.__f:>°
4. We have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and the learned Governrnent
AdV0C3t”3 aPDeariI1g for respondent Nos. 1 ” .
5. The learned counsel 1’_ap’pearirigl’ for”—..t’hTe
appellant submitted that the”~1.earned: Single was-it
not justified in disrnissirig petition” holding
that the endorsement Vi:ll2£f1′<1_vrespondent on
the agreemevrlpaf sailed by accepting
stamp dutyjgiilstified. The learned
of the provisions of
Sections the Karnataka Stamp Act, the
document lc'ould..not"'-have been validated after expiry of
'l V' "–ithee~-pei:iod"i'of limitation prescribed under the above said
the Writ petition ought to have
been al_1oived A.
The learned Government Advocate submitted
.._that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is
V justified as the stamp duty has been collected on the
\’>
10
agreement of sale and endorsement has been made. In
any View of the matter, the suit filed by the 3″‘
respondent in the writ petition is pending consideration
and all contentions can be taken at the time
agreement of sale is sought to be marked.
7. We have given carefifl co_nside’i_*at’1on~ tQ”the~,
contentions of the learnec1′–._,{;{jL1nsel the’
parties and scrutinize”d..V_the .rnaterial”on record.”
1’33.’ on llreclord would clearly show
that to 11 have filed
O.SiVNo.l4iQ()/2008 Aonllvthe file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn),
E3an.,lc:§al.ore”l’ Rural llll “lvDistr1’ct, seeking for specific
the agreement of sale dated 6.6.2007
and__ it forrespondent Nos.3 to 11 to prove the said
agreement and the requisite conditions for seeking
A’ ‘specific performance of agreement of sale and that the
it -«agreement has been entered into in accordance with law
and that could be done only by producing the
\’_#}1’?
11
agreement of sale in the suit. if the agreement of sale
was not properly stamped or there was any in
the endorsement made by 2136 respondent
Registrar and Deputy Commissioner oft’
agreement of sale dated 6.6.2007, almfagrs
the appellant herein to raiseélobjection the”
said agreement of sale.’dated-“6l..6:;2’0’07 in fitlriei evidence of
the plaintiff in the Court
will decide said document
in regard to the stamp duty
paid onMthe..agreerncnl:»..of sale was also the endorsement
made by the Ziéftriespo-nd’erit and this Court, in exercise
of power u’nd.VervAi*tic’}eV’2..26 of the Constitution of India,
‘limited .jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the
the endorsement made by 2nd
resp_onden_tf:oln the agreement of sale dated 6.6.2007.
“therefore, keep open the said question about the
admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 6.6.2007 in
…eTtridence in O.S.l\lo.l490/2008 with liberty to the
appellant herein to raise all objections regarding
\;’>’
12
admissibility of the said document including payment of
appropriate stamp duty on the document and-,ythe
endorsement made by the 29″ responden.t…_”f-Distrilcty
Registrar and Deputy Commissioner Starr1mp’s~,_Bangllalor*ep’
Rural District. We hold that itl_:li’s3
interfere with the order passed lbyllthe lcealirzied
Judge and keep open the llcolntentions referred to
above to be urged the ofadmission of the
document -agreementofihsialell_date’d*B.’r’3;2i’)07 in the suit
the objections
taken:v’llby’c’ shall be considered in
accordance appropriate time in the suit
without béingl iiifiuenced by the observations made by
it it °-the-learnedSinglellldudge on the merits of the case. We
1-..do;~not.Wits}; toexpress any opinion on the merits of the
case asthel question of urging the admissibility of
vlagreernent of sale in evidence has been kept open and
any-observation will prejudice the case of the parties.
x?=
13
Accordingly. the writ appeal is disposed of w1’f,h_.1:_he
above said observations.
Chigf.
Index: Yes/No .
Web Host ‘E*és/Néifl
bkv*