Partly allowed

Palani v. Venkatadri

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021WP/24395/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on an unregistered sale agreement. The High Court quashed the order, noting the civil court failed to consider if the transaction was part of a subsequent duly stamped agreement, and restored the matter for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 24.04.2019 in O.S. No. 15/2018 quashed; question restored for reconsideration.

Palani Vs Venkatadri — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.24395/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

PALANI S/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O DODDAGOPPENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

VENKATADRI S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶12

MARIYAMMA W/O GALAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶13

NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE JAMES AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶14

¶15

JYOTHI D/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶16

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND RESIDENTS OF 2^ND CROSS, UJJINIPURA, KASABA HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT TO R1; NOTICE SERVED ON R2 AND R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET AISDE THE ORDER DTD.24.04.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BHADRAVATHI IN O.S.NO.15/2018 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY A SUM OF RS.3,06,900/- TOWARDS DEFICIT STAMP DUTY AND THE PENALTY OF TEN TIMES THE DUTY ON THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 02.03.2013 PRODUCED AS ANNX-K TO THE W.P. AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.15/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi (for short, ' the civil Court '). The civil Court by the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 has impounded the unregistered sale agreement dated 02.03.2013 calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the first respondent initially entered into agreement dated 02.03.2013 for sale of the subject property, but as they could not complete the transaction within the stipulated time mentioned, they substituted this agreement by another agreement which is dated 16.04.2014. This agreement dated 16.04.2014 is registered and properly stamped. The parties, for reasons relied upon by the petitioner, have entered into the sale agreement which is dated

¶25

¶26

20.02.2015. This agreement, as the earlier agreement dated 16.04.2014, is registered and appropriate stamp is duty paid. The first transaction under the agreement dated 02.03.2013 is part of the transaction that has culminated in the final agreement dated 20.02.2015 which is properly stamped and registered. The petitioner, in view of Section 4 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 could not have been called upon to pay deficit stamp duty or the penalty.

¶27

It is seen that the civil Court has not considered the question whether the petitioner's case that the transaction under the first agreement dated 02.03.2013 is part of the same transaction that has resulted in the later sale agreement dated 20.02.2015 that is duly stamped and registered. This Court is of the considered view that before the petitioner is called upon to pay deficit stamp duty on the agreement dated 02.03.2013, the civil Court must necessarily consider

¶28

¶29

this question with due opportunity to both the petitioner and the respondents.

¶30

Therefore, the petition is allowed quashing the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 in O.S.No.15/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi and restoring the question for re-consideration in the light of the grounds urged by the petitioner herein.

¶31

SD/- JUDGE

¶32

Palani v. Venkatadri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palani v. Venkatadri

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

K Jayaprakash Since Dead by Lrs Vs B S Veerabhadran Dead by Lrs B Nagesh

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri Basavaraju

Sri H Ramakrishne Gowda Vs Deputy Director

Nataraju Vs Smt. Khudsia Sulthana Razak

G.Rama Reddy Vs M.Ramesh

Smt. Sumathi Vs Sri. Sherkhan Suri