Partly allowed

Sri Chandrappa H D v. Smt Padma

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/7293/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge order under Article 227 dismissed the petition regarding an application for deficit stamp duty but allowed the petition challenging the impounding of a lease deed without prior examination of stamp duty sufficiency.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Civil Court to examine the stamp duty sufficiency of the lease deed dated 18.10.2014 with due opportunity to parties; disposed of the other petition with liberty to rely on the lease deed

Sri Chandrappa H D Vs Smt Padma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39736 WP No. 7293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 26663 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7293 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 26663 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶9

IN WP NO. 7293/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI CHANDRAPPA H D S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO 333, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, SRIGANDHAN NAGAR HEGGANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560091.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

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

¶14

(BY SRI. RAMESH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT PADMA W/O SRINIVAS MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO 333 (PORTION 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, SRIGANDHA NAGAR HEGGANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560091.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:39736 WP No. 7293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 26663 of 2018

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.6845/2016, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT (CCH-60), BANGALORE, PERUSE THE SAME AND SETASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2017 ON EXAMINATION OF CHIEF PW1 ON PASSED THEREIN VIDE ANNX-D AND THEREBY ALLOW THE W.P.

¶22

IN WP NO. 26663/2018

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SRI CHANDRAPPA H D S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 333, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, SRIGANDHAN NAGAR HEGGANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560091.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. RAMESH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SMT PADMA W/O SRINIVAS MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO 333 (PORTION 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, SRIGANDHA NAGAR HEGGANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560091.

¶29

…RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI.R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:39736 WP No. 7293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 26663 of 2018

¶33

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.6845/2016, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT (CCH-60), BANGALORE, PERUSE THE SAME AND SETASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-E THEREIN AND THEREBY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

These petitions are by the plaintiff in O.S.No.6845/2016 on the file of the LIX Additional

¶37

City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, the ‘ civil Court ’]. The petitioner, in the writ petition in WP No.7293/2019, has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 13.07.2017, and in the other writ petition in W.P. No.26663/2018, the petitioner has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 11.01.2018.

¶38

The civil Court on 13.07.2017, while taking the petitioner’s affidavit in lieu of chief

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39736 WP No. 7293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 26663 of 2018

¶40

examination on record as evidence and permitting the marking of certain documents as exhibits, has impounded the lease deed dated 18.10.2014, and the civil Court by the order dated 11.01.2018 has rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] for directions to the respondent to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the lease deed dated 18.10.2014.

¶41

Sri Ramesh K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as against the order dated 13.07.2017 impounding the lease deed dated 18.10.2014, submits that the civil Court has impounded the document without even a decision on what was the stamp duty payable and the stamp duty actually paid, and the difference if any. The learned counsel submits that the civil Court ought to have considered these aspects after due opportunity to both the petitioner and the respondent, and then impounded the lease deed dated 18.10.2014.

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39736 WP No. 7293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 26663 of 2018

¶43

As regards the civil Court’s order dated 11.01.2018, Sri Ramesh K submits that the

¶44

petitioner has filed this application on a certain understanding of the law, but the petitioner would not pursue his grievance against the civil Court’s order and this petition could be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, subject to orders on the sufficiency of the stamp duty and the penalty payable, to rely upon the lease deed for collateral purposes as would be permissible in law.

¶45

These submissions are considered in the

¶46

light of the fact that the civil Court, for effective adjudication of the dispute in O.S.No.6845/2016, will have to decide whether the petitioner, who asserts that he is inducted in possession of the subject property as a tenant by the respondent, could be compelled to vacate without due process of law. The civil Court, for complete adjudication on the question of sufficiency of the stamp duty paid, should have

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39736 WP No. 7293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 26663 of 2018

¶48

considered the different aspects such as the stamp duty paid on the lease deed dated 18.10.2014 and the stamp duty payable under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act,1957, and the civil Court ought to have extended an opportunity before impounding the lease deed.

¶49

In the absence thereof, there must be interference in the W.P. No.7293/2019 calling upon the civil Court to consider the deficiency in the stamp duty paid on the lease deed dated 18.10.2014 notwithstanding its order dated 13.07.2017, but the petition in W.P. No.26663/2018 as against the civil Court’s order dated 11.01.2018 must be disposed of in the light of the submission now made but subject to all just exceptions in that regard. In the light of the afore the following

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petition in W.P. No.26663/2018 is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner, subject to the

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39736 WP No. 7293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 26663 of 2018

¶53

civil Court’s order on the question of deficit stamp duty, to rely upon the terms of the lease deed for collateral purposes subject to all just exceptions in law in that regard. The petition in W.P. No.7293/2019 is allowed calling upon the civil Court notwithstanding its order dated 13.07.2017 to examine whether the lease deed dated 18.10.2014 is properly stamped after due opportunity to the petitioner and respondent.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

Sri Chandrappa H D v. Smt Padma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandrappa H D v. Smt Padma

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

Mrs. Magdelene Mary Vs Mr. Shilingaiah

Mr C L Rodrigues @ Mr Luvi Rodrigues Vs Mrs Philomena Rodrigues

Smt. Govardhini Jayakumar Thotambailu Vs Dr. K v Chidananda

Maneyamma Vs a Kankasabapathi

Lord Ayyappan Trust Vs Sri. K Suresh

Nagarathnamma Vs Rajammanni