Dismissed

Smt Shobha W/O. Shashidhar Wali v. Smt.Suma W/O. Rajshekhar Sunkad

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/105706/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a Trial Court order imposing stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner argued the document was for transfer of leasehold rights and the Stamp Act was misapplied. The High Court held the Trial Court correctly valued the property based on Sub-Registrar's inspection report and found no error in the order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit within nine months.

Smt Shobha W/O. Shashidhar Wali Vs Smt.Suma W/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12657 WP No. 105706 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 105706 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SHOBHA W/O. SHASHIDHAR WALI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SADANAKERI, 3^RD CROSS ROAD, DHARWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. SUMA W/O. RAJSHEKHAR SUNKAD, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MASARI TAGORE ROAD, BETAGERI, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG.

¶13

SAROJA HANGARAKI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

MANJUNATH S/O. RAJSHEKHAR SUNKAD, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASARI TAGORE ROAD, BETAGERI, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG.

¶16

[NAGARAJ S/O. IRAPPA SUNKAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MASARI TAGORE ROAD, BETAGERI, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG.]

¶17

THE RESPONDENT DIED ON 8/3/2020 UNMARRIED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/07/2020 DELETED THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶18

SMT. ANASUYA W/O. SUGIRAPPA SUNKAD, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MASARI TAGORE ROAD, BETAGERI, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12657 WP No. 105706 of 2019

¶20

KUMARI. SAROJA D/O. SURIGAPPA SUNKAD, AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS SMT. SAROJA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA TAMMANNAVAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAIDAPUR-DHARWAD, TQ:DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶21

SMT. SUDHA @ JAYALASMI W/O. VEERANAGOUDA GODIHAL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MINCHERI, TQ: BELLARI, DIST: BELLARY.

¶22

SHRI KUBERAPPA S/O. IRAPPA SUNKAD, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE OFFICE, KUKANUR, TQ: YALAGURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SANJAY B. CHANAL, ADV. FOR R5; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R7; R4-SERVED; R1, R2 & R6 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:24.01.2019 IN O.S.NO.6/2007 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GADAG VIDE ANNEXURE-"A".

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12657 WP No. 105706 of 2019

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶31

the learned counsels for respondents.

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner has also filed a memo along with document before this Court stating that leasehold rights of the father of the petitioner is sold to the petitioner and hence produced the ruled card before this Court which clearly evidence the fact that the right is leasehold right.

¶33

Counsel also vehemently contend that the document which is produced before the Court is also a document of selling the right of leasehold right and also brought to the notice of this Court that when the recital of the document clearly discloses that it is a leasehold right and invoking of Article 20 is erroneous and this Court has to set aside the same.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12657 WP No. 105706 of 2019

¶35

The counsel also vehemently contend that the

¶36

Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that Article 5(e)(i) of the Stamp Act is not applicable in the present case and there is no delivery of possession as the father has executed the deed in favor of the petitioner. Hence, he contends that Article 5(e)(ii) is applicable and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶37

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that earlier also, the matter has come up before this Court and this Court also in Writ Petition No.104438/2016 C/w Writ Petition No.104681/2016 discussed in paragraph No.3 that if it is a residential property, the rate applicable is Rs.300/- per square feet, if it is a commercial property, the rate would be Rs.800/- per square feet and if the property is situated at main road, the rate applicable is between Rs.1,150/- to Rs.1,600/- per square feet. The Court also opined that when an information is sought by the Court as to the proper market value, the Sub-Registrar is required to give

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12657 WP No. 105706 of 2019

¶39

the correct information as to the market value of the suit schedule property. The information given by the Senior Sub-Registrar with respect to the suit property is only the guidance value given by the State Government and not specific information or correct market value of the suit property. The Sub-Registrar is required to apply the Government guidelines also while inspecting the suit property and thereafter give correct information as to what is the market value of the suit property. Merely communicating to the Court that these are the parameters and leaving it to the Court to calculate and decide the market value is not appropriate and hence, Trial Court is directed to secure clear information from the SubRegistrar as to the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit.

¶40

Counsel appearing for the respondents also

¶41

brought to notice of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Trial Court and Trial Court also taken note of the order passed by this Court earlier and only as per the

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12657 WP No. 105706 of 2019

¶43

directions to visit the suit property and after inspection ascertain the actual market value, report is submitted and in view of the existence of these roads, the market value of the suit property for residential purpose is valued at Rs.380/- as on the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 10.01.2007 as per the Guidelines of Central Valuation Committee and hence the Trial Court has rightly passed an order calculating the market value of Rs.380/- and hence it does not require any interference.

¶44

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondents, the issue before this Court is with regard to the payment of total duty and penalty on the document and also document is also produced before this Court and the very contention of the petitioner that the document is only a sale of leasehold right and not an absolute sale of the property of the market value and this Court has to take note of the relief sought in the suit and when such relief is sought to execute the sale deed and whether it is a document of

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12657 WP No. 105706 of 2019

¶46

transfer of leasehold right only or exclusive right, the same has to be considered by the Trial Court. But the factual aspect is not in dispute that earlier also an approach is made before this Court and this Court also directed vide order dated 22.11.2018 in WP 104438/2016 to the Sub-Registrar to give clear information as to what is the market value of the suit property and based on the inspection and also taking into note of the existence of the road, Sub-Registrar fixed the rate as Rs.380/- and based on the said report only order has been passed.

¶47

When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing such an order and Trial Court also discussed the earlier order passed by this Court and also having taken note of the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Gadag dated 02.01.2019 wherein also reason was assigned in respect of property for residential purpose it is valued at Rs.380/- as on the date of filing of suit and on that basis only the duty and penalty is ascertained and direction was given to pay

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12657 WP No. 105706 of 2019

¶49

an amount of Rs.1,49,380/- and when such direction is given, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing such an order and hence no merit in the writ petition.

¶50

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶53

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter

¶54

within nine months since the suit is of the year 2007.

¶55

The respective parties and counsels are directed to

¶56

assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case within the stipulated period.

¶57

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶58

SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt Shobha W/O. Shashidhar Wali v. Smt.Suma W/O. Rajshekhar Sunkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shobha W/O. Shashidhar Wali v. Smt.Suma W/O. Rajshekhar Sunkad

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

Shri.Suresh S/O Ganapati Revankar Vs Smt.Hansaben W/O Natwarlal Singala

National Highways Authority of India Vs Smt Shoba Adivayya Soppimath W/O Adivayya Soppimath

Smt. M Bhagyamma W/O Chokkalakshmipati Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand Vs Gram Panchayat Mallapur

Basappa S/O Tippanna Vagathi Vs the Authorised Officer

The State of Karnataka Vs Riyaz