Partly allowed

Sri K S Srirangaraju v. Smt M Rajamma

Karnataka HC25 Aug 2014WP/7074/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged an order directing petitioners to pay Rs.2,45,300 as stamp duty and penalty on an agreement alleged to be a mortgage termed a lease. The High Court held the lower court's calculation was incorrect under the Karnataka Stamp Act. Instead of Rs.2,45,300, the correct liability was fixed at Rs.33,000.

What did the court decide?

The direction to pay Rs.2,45,300 is set aside; petitioners liable to pay Rs.33,000 as duty and penalty; petition disposed.

Sri K S Srirangaraju Vs Smt M Rajamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7074 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri.K.S.Srirangaraju,

¶8

Aged about 62 years,

¶9

S/o.Late K.R.Shesha Iyengar,

¶10

Smt.P.K.Ramamani,

¶11

Aged about 53 years, W/o.Sri.K.S.Srirangaraju,

¶12

Petitioners 1 and 2 are Residing at No.M-59, KHB III Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore – 570 023. …Petitioners

¶13

(By Shri: Y.K.Narayana Sharma, Advocate)

¶14

And:

¶15

Smt.M.Rajamma, Aged about 54 years, W/o.Late M.Dundaiah,

¶16

Sri.Guru, S/o.Late M.Dundaiah,

¶17

Aged about 23 years,

¶18

¶19

Smt.Suchitra Aged about 27 years, D/o.Late M.Dundaiah,

¶20

Smt.M.S.Sowmya, Aged about 26 years, D/o.Late M.Dundaiah,

¶21

Smt.M.Shwetha, Aged about 25 years, D/o.Late M.Dundaiah,

¶22

Sri.Suhas M.D., Aged about 20 years, S/o.Late M.Dundaiah,

¶23

Respondents 1 to 6 are Residing at No.20, Ground Floor, 1^st Stage, Kuvempunagar, Mysore – 570 023. …Respondents.

¶24

(By Shri: M.V.Ramesh Jois, Advocate for respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, Respondent No.4 is deemed to have been served vide order dated 5.8.2014)

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 30.1.2012 passed on I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.567/2008 by the Court of the III Additional I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysore, as per Annexure-F.

¶26

This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶30

counsel for the respondents.

¶31

The petitioners are said to be the plaintiffs who had

¶32

entered into the transaction with the defendants and according to the petitioners, it was merely a transaction to borrow money and they termed it as an ‘agreement of lease’ when actually, at best it could be termed as an ‘agreement to mortgage property’ and a sum of Rs.3 lakh was shown as the lease amount. However, the defendants having failed to repay the amount, the petitioners have filed a suit for recovery of the same. The agreement having been produced only for the purpose of reference and though the petitioners were not relying on the same for establishing their case,

¶33

as the amount was paid by way of a cheque, the Court below impounded the document and directed the petitioners to pay duty

¶34

¶35

and penalty as calculated by the Registry. The Registry in turn as arrived at a sum of Rs.2,45,300/- as duty and penalty.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out

¶37

that the basis of calculation is not available and hence, the

¶38

petitioners are before this Court. Though he would seek to canvass that the agreement cannot be considered as an ‘agreement of lease’ and it is a document which is non est and hence, could even be ignored, his contention cannot be accepted. On the face of it, it is shown as an ‘agreement of lease’ for a period of three years and the

¶39

lease amount is shown as Rs.3 lakh. The lease amount was to be refunded on expiry of the lease period. Therefore, the Court below having impounded the document cannot be faulted. The calculation of the stamp duty and penalty however appears to be incorrect. In terms of Article 30 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, where the lease purports to be for a term exceeding one year and not exceeding ten years, the stamp duty payable is 1% of the

¶40

¶41

premium amount. Here there is no rent prescribed but a lumpsum amount is shown as the premium amount, but the learned counsel for the petitioners strongly refutes it to be labelled as the premium amount. As per the contents of the lease agreement, the consideration is Rs.3 lakh and therefore, the duty payable is Rs.3,000/-. Having regard to the penalty prescribed under the Karnataka Stamp Act, which is at the fixed rate of ten times the duty payable, penalty would be Rs.30,000/-. The petitioners are therefore liable to pay a total sum of Rs.33,000/- as duty and penalty on the document, which shall be paid. The impugned direction, directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,45,300/- is set aside. The stamp duty and penalty payable is a sum of Rs.33,000/-. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri K S Srirangaraju v. Smt M Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Srirangaraju v. Smt M Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Raghupathy Vs Smt. Saraswathamma

Sri Vijay P Shah Vs Sri M M Mahesh

H.P.Devaraju Vs Smt.Puttathayamma

Sri Ananda Nayari Vs Sri Seetharama Nayari

Ms v Jayalakshmi Vs Sri Shyamlal R Chabria

Shri B T Bore Gowda Vs Shri T C Lobo