Disposed

Rangaswamy @ Ranganna v. Lakshmamma

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023WP/24208/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court stayed the operation of the Additional Civil Judge's order under the Karnataka Stamp Act requiring the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on a mortgage deed. The Court held that the recitals in the deed, not the pleadings, determine the nature of the document for stamp duty purposes and ruled against changing the application of the law due to a retrospective amendment.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the petitioner was granted eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty.

Rangaswamy @ Ranganna Vs Lakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40149 WP No. 24208 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24208 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

RANGASWAMY @ RANGANNA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS AGRICULTURIST WATER TANK ROAD, B H ROAD, HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN – 573 211

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. VIJAYA M N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

LAKSHMAMMA

¶15

W/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶16

RANI

¶17

W/O LATE UMESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶18

BOTH ARE R/O

¶19

KAMASAMUDDRA VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:40149 WP No. 24208 of 2018

¶22

HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 03.11.2023, PETITION AGAINST R1 STANDS ABATED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.19.04.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT HOLENARSIPURA ON I.ANO.10 IN O.S.NO.199/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.199/2010 on the file of the Additional Civil

¶29

Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura [for short, ‘ the civil Court ’]. The petitioner has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 19.04.2018, and the civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner’s application [IA No.10] filed under Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 [for short, ‘ the Stamp Act’ ] directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.16,390/- as deficit stamp duty and ten times

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:40149 WP No. 24208 of 2018

¶32

thereof as penalty. This Court has granted interim order staying the operation of the civil Court’s order on 27.06.2018.

¶33

The civil Court, observing that the petitioner’s suit for permanent injunction is based on the document dated 06.09.1992 and that report is called for from the jurisdictional District Registrar on the stamp duty payable on such document, has opined that the document in question is a mortgage deed chargeable to stamp duty under Article 34(a) of the Stamp Act and 10% of the consideration will have to be paid as stamp duty. Further, the civil Court has opined that the consideration mentioned in this document is Rs.15,000/and therefore, the jurisdictional District Registrar has rightly opined that the document, which is drawn on a stamp paper of Rs.10/-, is insufficiently stamped and the petitioner will have to pay deficit duty of Rs.1,490/-

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:40149 WP No. 24208 of 2018

¶36

and ten times thereof as penalty and thus in all a sum of Rs.16,390/-.

¶37

This Court must record at the outset that

¶38

though the report is called for by the District Registrar, the civil Court has applied its mind to the contents of the document, the relevant provisions and ultimately opined that the document is insufficiently stamped. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who places on record a photocopy of the document dated 06.09.1992, submits that the petitioner’s essential case is that this document is a sale agreement and not a mortgage deed, and that the petitioner is categorical in this regard in the plaint and the civil Court has overlooked this material circumstance.

¶39

The terms of the document dated 06.09.1992 are perused, and this Court must opine, for the limited purposes of this petition, that the terms do not render themselves to an understanding

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40149 WP No. 24208 of 2018

¶41

that the transaction between the parties under this deed is for sale of the subject property, and crucially, it is settled that for the purposes of deciding the question of sufficiency of stamp duty, the recital as contained in the document will have to be seen and not the manner in which the document is described in the pleadings. The petitioner cannot succeed against the civil Court’s order on this ground.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the provisions of Article 20 read with Article 34(a) of the Stamp Act, the stamp duty payable would be at the rate of 5% of the agreed amount. This contention also does not persuade this Court as the revision in the rate of the stamp duty payable on a conveyance as contemplated under Article 20 is with effect from 01.04.2009 and prior to this date the stamp duty payable was at the rate of 10% of the agreed consideration.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:40149 WP No. 24208 of 2018

¶45

Therefore, there cannot be any interference with the civil Court’s order and the petition must be disposed of. Further, as the petitioner has the advantage of the interim order in the last four years, the petitioner must be granted reasonable time to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty as concluded by the civil Court. Hence, the petition is disposed of granting eight weeks to the petitioner from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to pay deficit stamp duty and the penalty with the respondent.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

SA ct:sr

Rangaswamy @ Ranganna v. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaswamy @ Ranganna v. Lakshmamma

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. M. N. Veerendra Patil Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Smt. T Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. T R Mehrunnissa Vs M N Muniswamy Reddy

M/S Rns Motors Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt Pushpalatha S Vs the Commissioner of Service Tax

M/S Sohum Wellness Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commisioner of Central Tax