Allowed

Sri. Rajappa v. Sri. Yallappa

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024WP/3302/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowing a plaintiff to challenge lower court orders directing stamp duty assessment on a document held to be a mere licence. The High Court quashed orders calling for a report and set aside the requirement to pay duty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Trial Court directing registry to secure a report on stamp duty are set aside; plaintiff allowed to mark the document.

Sri. Rajappa Vs Sri. Yallappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11470 WP No. 3302 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.3302 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAJAPPA S/O. SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA AGE: 53 YEARS R/AT. KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE DOMMASANDRA POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562106. (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. ANNAYYAPPA AGE: 82 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. MUNI ANNAYYAPPA S/O. SRI. YELLAPPA AGE 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT: KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE (SAMPIGENAGARA) ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562106.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR BASAVANAGUDI REGISTRATION, OFFICE AT NO.779, DWARAKA 1^ST FLOOR, BANASHANKARI 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANGALORE - 560085

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:11470 WP No. 3302 of 2021

¶17

(BY SRI. S.T.NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;

¶18

SRI. DUSHYANTH ARADHYA H.C., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶19

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE HONBLE COURT IN O.S.NO.425/2013 PENDING IN ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL TO HEAR UNNUMBERED IA DATED 11.01.2019 UNDER SECTION 33 AND 34 OF KARANTAKA STAMP ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C PRIOR TO DIRECTING THE PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY OF REPORT DATED 05.03.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The plaintiff in O.S.No.425/2013 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, has filed this petition challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court dated 18.01.2020, 07.03.2020 and 16.12.2020, by which, it directed its registry to secure a report from the District Registrar regarding the duty and penalty payable on a document which was sought to be marked in evidence by the plaintiff.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:11470 WP No. 3302 of 2021

¶26

The suit in O.S.No.425/2013 was filed for the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

" a) Declaring that the plaintiff had absolute right easement to use the B schedule road to reach the A schedule residential house.

¶29

b) Restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any person on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's right of way in respect of the B schedule property by granting a decree of permanent injunction.

¶30

c) Directing the defendants to pay the costs of this proceedings.

¶31

d) Granting such other relief/s which can be granted to the plaintiff under the circumstances of the above case in the ends of justice."

¶32

The suit was contested by the defendant No.2.

¶33

When the suit was set down for trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and he proposed to mark a document titled as "Panchayath Muchchalike Patra" dated 06.11.2004 to establish that the defendant No.1 had agreed that the suit 'B' property shall be treated as an

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:11470 WP No. 3302 of 2021

¶36

easement and the suit 'A' property was conveyed to the vendor of the plaintiff.

¶37

At that stage, the defendants filed an application under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to impound the "Panchayath Muchchalike Patra" and to collect the applicable stamp duty and penalty.

¶38

This application was contested by the plaintiff and the Trial Court without passing any order on the application, directed the registry to obtain a report from the District Registrar, as to the applicable stamp duty. By the impugned orders, the Trial Court directed the registry to comply the aforesaid order to obtain the report from the District Registrar.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff

¶40

has filed this petition.

¶41

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the 'Panchayath Muchchalike Patra' is neither a

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11470 WP No. 3302 of 2021

¶43

transfer nor a conveyance which attracts Stamp Duty under the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. He submits that the 'Panchayath Muchchalike Patra' was only a licence granted by the defendant No.1 in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff and therefore, no stamp duty was payable on the said document.

¶44

The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff was claiming some semblance of right over 'B' schedule property under the 'Panchayath Muchchalike Patra' and therefore, stamp duty ought to have been paid and since the plaintiff did not pay the applicable stamp duty, the appropriate stamp duty along with penalty had to be recovered.

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶46

learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶47

A perusal of the 'Panchayath Muchchalike Patra' dated 06.11.2004, shows that it was a licence given by the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:11470 WP No. 3302 of 2021

¶50

defendant No.1 to the vendor of the plaintiff to pass over 'B' schedule property and it was agreed between them that 'B' schedule property shall perpetually be held in common and kept open for use by the vendor of the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.1.

¶51

Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the 'Panchayath Muchchalike Patra' was merely a licence and nothing more and since no property was transferred or conveyed under the said agreement, no stamp duty was payable on the same. The said document was not an instrument as defined under Section 2(j) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The Trial Court committed an error of sorts in not passing an order on the application filed by the defendants under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and at the same time, committed an error in calling for a report from the District Registrar about the applicable stamp duty.

¶52

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed . The impugned orders dated 18.01.2020,

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:11470 WP No. 3302 of 2021

¶55

07.03.2020 and 16.12.2020 passed by the Trial Court directing the registry to comply its earlier order to secure a report from the District Registrar about the applicable Stamp Duty on the 'Panchyath Muchchalike Patra' dated 06.11.2004 is set aside. The plaintiff is at liberty to mark the said document and proceed in accordance with law. However it is for the defendant No.1 to establish that the said document was not executed by him.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri. Rajappa v. Sri. Yallappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajappa v. Sri. Yallappa

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

Smt Nalini K Urs Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Deepica Residency Welfare Association of Residents (Dwar) Vs M/S. Gruha Deepica Builders

Mr Nizamuddin Vs Smt Waheeda Begum

Smt. B.N. Umadevi Vs Sri. Rajanna M

B M Munivenkatappa Since Dead Rep. by His Lrs Vs Munivenkatappa Since Dead by Lrs

Sri Byanna Vs Sri G M Ashwathaiah