Dismissed

T M Sundarrajan v. Sri J Achuthananda

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2023WP/1116/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order impounding an inadequately stamped sale agreement. The court held that the impugned order did not suffer from illegality or cause prejudice, finding no merit in the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed holding the impugned order under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act did not warrant interference under Article 227.

T M Sundarrajan Vs Sri J Achuthananda — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:23366 WP No. 1116 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1116 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T M SUNDARRAJAN S/O T.M.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.223, BEHIND UDUPI KRISHNA SERVICE STATION, BERYA VILLAGE, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 56.

¶9

SMT. MALTHI W/O T.M.SUNDARRAJAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OFFICER, CANARA BANK, CHOWKALLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 78.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR.K.V FOR SRI PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI J ACHUTHANANDA S/O LATE JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 5O YEARS, R/AT D. NO.3355, 4TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN DATTAGALLI, 3RD STAGE, MYSURU-79.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.09.2019 ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.33/2018 ON THE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:23366 WP No. 1116 of 2020

¶20

FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT K.R.NAGAR AND FURTHER QUASH ALL CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.09.2019 ANNEXURE-F.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition by the defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.33/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Nagar, whereby the sale agreement dated 28.08.2014 was impounded by the Trial Court which directed the document to be sent to the District Registrar, Mysuru, for the purpose of adjudication, determination and collection of duty and penalty payable by the respondent – plaintiff on the said agreement.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

The material on record discloses that the respondent – plaintiff has instituted the aforesaid suit for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the aforesaid sale agreement dated 28.08.2014 in respect of the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the petitioners – defendants.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23366 WP No. 1116 of 2020

¶27

Prior to commencement of evidence, since the respondent – plaintiff had produced the original sale agreement dated 28.08.2014, which was alleged to be insufficiently stamped by the petitioners – defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order exercising its powers under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’) and impounding the document and sending the same to the District Registrar, Mysuru. During the pendency of the suit, prior to the said document being admitted in evidence, the petitioners filed an application - I.A. No.IV invoking Sections 33 and 34 of the Act and for a direction to impound the document. In response to the same, the respondent – plaintiff filed a Memo on 20.08.2019 stating that they have no objection for the document to be impounded and referred to and sent to the District Registrars for calculation of duty and penalty and applicable penalty thereon. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 07.09.2019 directing impounding of the sale agreement and sending the original sale agreement to the District Registrar for collection of necessary stamp duty and penalty.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:23366 WP No. 1116 of 2020

¶30

It is seen that subsequent to the said impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the District Registrar has issued an endorsement / Certificate dated 22.10.2019 and calculated a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- as duty and penalty payable by the respondent – plaintiff. Subsequently, the said amount of Rs.1,54,000/- has been paid by the respondent – plaintiff and noted by the Trial Court in its order sheet dated 20.11.2019. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent – plaintiff was liable to pay additional duty and penalty on the said document and that the same had to be calculated by the Trial Court cannot be accepted and the said contention cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to assail the impugned order.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the Trial Court and all further proceedings pursuant thereto including payment of Rs.1,54,000/- by the petitioner as calculated by the District Registrar and accepted by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to cause any prejudice to the petitioner or result in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23366 WP No. 1116 of 2020

¶33

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in ( 2015) 5 SCC 423.

¶34

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the

¶35

same is hereby dismissed .

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

HNM / SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

T M Sundarrajan v. Sri J Achuthananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T M Sundarrajan v. Sri J Achuthananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athmananda Trust Vs Union of India

Sri Puttaiah Vs Sri Shivamurthy

Official Liquidator of Vs Sri Tapan Senapathy

M/S Kavveri Telecom Products Limited Vs M/S Pota Global Logistics India Private Limited

Sri Sahil Vazirally Vs Sri M Ramkrishna

Sri Vasantha Kumar Vs M v Mahesh