IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3"' DAY OF NOVEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.y,E;\:uGO'PATrEA'_V;G'OWOA 'T 'V
WRIT PETITION NO.25O6I.y/2QT1O7(GM_¥CI§'cj'V[3,.._'~i_:A
BETWEEN:
Sri N.Nanjundappa,
S/O. late Chikkananjappa, _4 V .
Aged about 76 years, _
R/at Kodigehaili village post, *
Yeiahanka HOb!i.,» . if
Bangalore NOrth._T'a!uk¥I_
.3 2 _ PETITIONER
(By Sri 3.5'.Gov:n'da'--.s_w'a:ny'; TA§_!v;')_
1. Sri Mudiéappaga.
S/O. !ate«.,Venln.}:j_a_t Madrhyuglri«by~'im'»po"unding the agreement
dated :.6....3_.2'£i_09*vi_de --Anne>{ure.:_~.r'C, in o.s. No.13?/2009,
by allowing' t'he_..Vii'i~""i._
Thislpetition-__co'rfinin.gn'on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day=,._t_h'e Court made the following:
a H x QRBER
i"et"i«tjnonVfevri"instituted suit against the respondents 1 to
5/d’efen_’dant’s for specific performance of an agreement to
dated 16.03.2009 in respect of piaint schedule
“property for sale consideration amount of Rs.4,67,500/-.
No.2 was filed along with the suit under Order 39 Rule
ix
1 & 2 of CPC to pass an order of temporary injunction. Suit
summons and notice of the LA was ordered :to’»..the
defendants on 24.04.2009. Simultaneously,~«~~-theQcoioirtg
decided to hear on stamp duty on the next.,d,a_te,Vvof_]heai’il’ng_
of the suit. Defendants though’ w:eAre:,s«ertie’d…:
summons, did not appear and hence, they5lw.e’re plgacedt
exparte. However, on 03.0€§’.i’2V009_, def’e.n”dantsl\appeared
and filed I.A No.4 un’d:er.Ori:ler:, CPCV2u”tox set-aside
the order dated 02.0§.V2l’009l.t’__Vp{aciiigtliem exparte and
permit themftlo’f5p’roseCute””the’ No.4 was not
opposedijy plainti:ff.a’i1d the same was allowed.
The pvlxalnltiff filed compromise petition
under_Order. 23.Ri–ile’-.3’€:PC. The trial court noticed from
“‘~..,_’the-,i{T;fJ,:that, property is a granted land by the
the 15’ defendant, who belonged to
l(oracha_ a scheduled tribe, with a nonralienation
condition. of 15 years. A memo was filed stating that, the
“:l.”_pos’s’ession of the property is with the defendants only and
the plaintiff has not taken the possession as per the
agreement and the recital in the sale agreement that the
la.
xf
possession has been delivered, is a mistake. The-.,triai
court heard the learned counsel and adjourned V.
2. The trial court uponwgperusa’l””ol’_’:.theV”,sa,id”‘
instrument i.e., agreement of sale datrad
noticed that, the document :ioi=..tainst’a. coveria’ntj2of.,dei3ive%ry-atL’
of possession of the to the
purchaser i.e., the Having
heard the learned counsei. with insufficiency
of the joiiisuiitiiidocument and the
sale agreement, has
held that,__ thAe’i”d.ee_d’vis,”not—.properly stamped, the duty and
penaltyhas notheein therefore the compromise
appfication alisogbveing not iawfui, was not allowed and
Viiacting _vu.indef«Section 33 of The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
has ordered for impounding of the
deed. the next hearing date, the plaintiff filed a memo
V. ‘for,_.dismi.ssai of the suit as not pressed. Acting ‘hn the
i ‘miéinio, the suit has been dismissed.
\/
tr
3. Noticing that, the plaintiff has not paid the
amount towards the deficit stamp duty and penalty as
required under Section 37(1) of the Act, in
power under Section 37(2) of the
agreement of sale dated 16.03.2000
Deputy Commissioner for ginitiating:”–suitabi,e.’:a’ctioriA”‘fo’r’r,
recovery of deficit stamp said
authority has issued.’:;3…_,_noti’ce’_’Vlci~ate’d’-.;3.07,20iO calling
upon the petitioner to remittheillciyefi-cikt duty and the
penalty, in a|l~’a:noIiJnti:ng within a period of
21 da§x’s’.i”‘t”r.h§::,pIaif§itsrf’n§s fIled”‘th4is writ petition to quash
the order passed by the trial court,
whereunder, t’i*:e_’ord=er”~~for impounding of agreement of
” _ sale agted »,1A6.0A3,2G09′ was passed.
“-“._y.14’.’4:”‘*_~..,x__S~ri’*”‘B.S.Govinda Swamy, iearned counsel
app”eari–.ng -for the petitioner firstly contended that, without
l=:ol,ci4ingf””any enquiry and without considering the memo
-_”file’d”by both the parties on 03.06.2009, the impugned
“order has been passed. Secondly, the agreement having
4
been held to be opposed to public policy and void, the
order directing impounding of the document
Thirdly, on account of the fact that the partiesihavei
that, they are not willing to act upon~t.he ~iE_igr_éerri’enVtvd§ated 0
16.03.2009, there was no need trial’ court«.
the impugned order. Last’|y,.:,,:””th>e notice.,_i:ssu”e.d””by: the”?
Deputy Commissioner,—dxatedgy.i23V..0:?.’2’0;iO, isin violation of
principies of naturalall’J’i.i_sti’ce,,.i:”V,:aswnoé.:.fopportunity was
provided while.iiédetermilngingi duty and
penaky. I 1″ 0 I A “W
learned Additional
Government-taituite+i§\}..’submitted that, the trial court is justified in
ti_i_a__t document is insufficiently stamped and
hence, ~tVhe’ré’ is liability to pay the deficit of stamp duty and
penalty and in ordering the impounding of the
“d.o’cu’ment. Learned counsel submitted that, the
“proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner has not been
E
F
questioned in the writ petition and hence, it is not open to
the petitioner to contend that, the notice
(Annexure–G) is vioiative of principles of nat_u’raijufstivcei, 3′
6. Keeping in View the v’r.ivaij_”contenitioins :ar’id_’th:e
record, the point for consideration is:’=.
Whether the triai court wasgifustifiediiii .0rdei*ing
the impounding’ rjfrhe 5ag.reeme».r_2f0f sale dated
15.03.2009? 3 0 ” A ” 3
7. «:_iV3’i'{::Vt””pr’icé)vides for stamp-
duties. instruments chargeable
with éiicitvprovides for adjudication
as to p’ro_p’erV IV deais with instruments
not duty stamiqedf Section 33 casts a duty upon every
.°’ipersoniwhohas authority to receive evidence and every
of a pubiic office before whom the
inst.rum_enty3Aieiproduced, if it appears to him that the same
notduiy stamped, to impound the same. Sub~section (2)
y:.”–.o’i”–..§ection 33 of the Act Eays down the procedure for
…_undertaking the process of impounding. L
//r
J’
8. Indlsputedly, the plaintiff and the defendants
entered into an agreement of safe dated 16.03.2009:.;”‘»aThe
sale consideration amount has been shown aridt_he_”_fd.iee’d.
has the recital of delivery of possession of_
the vendors to the purchaser. ji,4″«_of1″th–e”pi’a:pi:nt,,_
has been averred as foIEows:;
“That as per the agreensier1=t’d’of_saiedatecl 16303-2009
the plaintiff was,_put posisessioh of the
property and in peaceful
possessiortand eAr1_}o.3..r_1Vner1v–i:Ao,f and he has
also raised««pfopsi=ongth.e p1ai.ht..”sc_hedu1e property”.
_of»..:_’the ._”statutory obligation under
Section} V the inadequately stamped
instr_ur_nent4″‘*w_as~impounded and the duty and penalty
‘l”‘–i.,hav.ing:_’…cpoty.been”p’ai’d, in exercise of the power under
the Act, the instrument was sent to the
iilieputyv.Cojrioimissioner for dealing with the same in
‘V-..accordaVn3ce with law. The Deputy Commissioner has
“‘~”pAAtherfe:after issued the notice as at Annexure~G. If the
ijeputy Commissioner has not provided opportunity of
hearing, Annexure~G being only a notice, it is open to the
K
/7;’
petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, file
his statement of objections if any, upon
Commissioner has to pass appropriate orde’:-‘ii
passed by the trial court
agreement being in conformity
Section 33 of the Act, does
and hence, no interference is.icai!ed For,
In the result, the…writ. petition””bei’n.g’devoid of merit
shail stand
However,”‘it”i:siiopeinfi-gnfo to appear before
the Deputy to Annexure–G, file
his statement of-VVoi3jectiAo’n’s”‘°:if any and the Deputy
Commissi§j§fie;A..,i.:shall uproceed further in the matter in
acco
1 Orderedv’—‘acCordingly.
Sd/-i
Judge