In a writ petition challenging an order to pay stamp duty and penalty on an impounded sale agreement executed on insufficient stamp where possession had been delivered, the High Court of Karnataka held the petitioner liable and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.2762 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G. JAYARAMAIAH, S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT KALATAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 090.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. ARASAMMA, W/O JAYARAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS:
2
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED ON ANNX-A THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD.21.11.2005 BY IMPOUNDING THE SAME IN O.S.NO.1302/2006 BY CALCULATING THE DUTY AND PENALTY OF RS.8,77,800/- AS PER ANNX-J PASSED BY IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-J AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BY RECALLING THE ORDERS DTD.10.09.2018 AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO PROCEED WITH THE FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by
the Trial Court, directing the petitioner to pay duty
3
and penalty in O.S.No.1302/2006 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, vide Anneuxre-J, has filed this writ petition.
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.1302/2006 against the original defendant-Arasamma. As the said Arasamma died, her legal representatives were brought on record as defendants No.2 to 4 therein. In this writ petition, the legal representatives of the original defendant-Arasamma are arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3.
In the said suit, original defendant - deceased Arasamma had filed a written statement. The Trial Court framed the issues. As stated above, respondents No.1 to 3 herein have been impleaded as
4
Defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the suit. The respondent No.1 herein filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner filed an affidavit evidence and got examined himself as P.W-1 and got marked the documents. While marking the documents, the Trial Court has impounded the sale agreement dated 21.11.2005, holding that it is executed on insufficient stamp and impounded the same and directed the Office to calculate the duty and penalty. The Office has calculated the duty and penalty. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition.
5
without adjudicating whether the said document is executed on insufficient stamp or not. He further submits that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit schedule property under the agreement. Hence, the petitioner is not liable to pay the duty and penalty. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
6
penalty. The petitioner has produced the copy of agreement of sale. From the perusal of the agreement of sale, it is seen that there is a recital in the agreement of sale that possession of the suit schedule property was delivered in favour of the petitioner as on the date of execution of agreement of sale.
7. When possession of the suit schedule
property was delivered in favour of the petitioner and an agreement was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-, the said agreement is executed on insufficient stamp. As per the schedule of Article 5 (e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, if possession is delivered in compliance of the agreement, the petitioner is liable to pay the stamp duty as per the conveyance of schedule of Article 20 of the Stamp Act. As observed above, the agreement is executed on insufficient stamp, the petitioner is liable to pay duty
7
as per the conveyance of schedule of Article 20 of the Stamp Act, and also liable to pay the penalty. The Trial Court is justified in calculating the duty and penalty and also is justified in directing the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
SD/JUDGE
GRD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court committed an error in directing the petitioner to pay duty and penalty without adjudicating the insufficiency of stamp on the sale agreement.
Whether the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty as conveyance when possession was delivered under an agreement executed on insufficient stamp.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. G. Jayaramaiah
Smt. Manjula
Smt. Muniratna
Sri. Batyappa
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
