Allowed

Haji Monu v. Mumtaz

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024WP/48030/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Trial Court's order impounding an agreement of sale due to unpaid stamp duty. The High Court held the document was a licence chargeable under Article 5(j), not an agreement of sale under Article 5(e), and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impoundment order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Trial Court setting aside the impoundment of the agreement of sale dated 04.01.2004.

Haji Monu Vs Mumtaz — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9578 WP No. 48030 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 48030 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HAJI MONU AGED 62 YEARS, S/O SABAN BEARY, RESIDING AT KARANDADI, MAJOOR VILLAGE AND POST, VIA: KAUP, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576108. (BY SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

MUMTAZ AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT KARANDADI, MAJOOR VILLAGE AND POST, VIA: KAUP-576108 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.08.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.477/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9578 WP No. 48030 of 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The defendant in O.S.No.477/2015 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi has filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 20.08.2018, by which, the Trial Court impounded a sale agreement dated 12.01.2018 and forwarded it to the Deputy Registrar for collection of duty and penalty.

¶20

The suit in O.S.No.477/2015 was filed for perpetual injunction and for a declaratory decree to declare that the plaintiff and the persons claiming under her were entitled to use 'B' schedule road for ingress

¶21

and egress. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that the owner of 'B' schedule property was Mrs. Fouziya Banu and she had executed a sale agreement dated 04.01.2004 which ultimately culminated in a sale deed that was duly registered. When the suit was set down for evidence of the defendant, the said agreement dated 04.01.2004 was marked as Ex.D1. The plaintiff did not oppose marking

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9578 WP No. 48030 of 2018

¶23

the said document. However, the Trial Court took exception to the said document and held that stamp

¶24

duty had to be paid on the said document and since the defendant had failed to pay the duty, it exercised power under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and impounded the document and directed the collection of duty and penalty as provided under Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

submitted that since the document was marked without any objection, the admissibility of the said document could not be questioned on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped. He submitted that the sale agreement had culminated in a sale deed Mrs. Fouziya Banu who is the owner of 'B' schedule property and therefore, the agreement of sale lost its

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:9578 WP No. 48030 of 2018

¶30

significance and was furnished only for collateral purpose to establish the description of the property.

¶31

The respondent though served with the notice is absent.

¶32

A perusal of the agreement dated 04.01.2004

¶33

indicated that it was not regarding the sale of a property, but it was merely a licence granted by the owner of the land to the defendant to pass over the land to reach her property. Therefore, the said agreement in

¶34

the strict sense, was not an agreement of sale of immovable property but was a licence granted by the owner of the property which was not chargeable to the stamp duty under any provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Even if it is treated as an agreement, the stamp duty chargeable was not under Article 5(e) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, but was to be charged under Article 5(j) of the Karnataka Stamp Act.

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:9578 WP No. 48030 of 2018

¶36

¶37

The maximum stamp duty that was payable under Article 5(j) of the Karnataka Stamp Act was Rs.50/- up to 01.04.2009 and was enhanced to Rs.200/- with effect from 01.04.2009.

¶38

In the case on hand, a perusal of the agreement dated 04.01.2004, shows that a sum of Rs.50/- was paid on the agreement. Therefore, it cannot be held that the agreement was not sufficiently stamped and the Trial Court therefore committed an error in construing the agreement dated 04.01.2004 as agreement of sale of immovable properties and that the possession of the property was delivered to the defendant and therefore stamp duty under Article 5(e) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, had to be paid. The reasoning adopted by the Trial Court is perverse and deserves to be interfered with.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.08.2018

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:9578 WP No. 48030 of 2018

¶41

¶42

passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The agreement of sale dated 04.01.2004 shall be construed as a valid

¶43

document.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

¶46

Haji Monu v. Mumtaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Monu v. Mumtaz

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

Thopaiah Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives Sri. Rangaswamy T Vs Smt Sakamma

Shaik Maula Ali Vs P. Anusuya

Mrs Geetha Mani P Shetty Vs Sri Ganesh Bangera

K S Siddagangappa Vs Sri. Kiran Raj L

Smt. Manjula Vs Shri K.K. Anand Satish

Sri Venkategowda Vs Sri M Shanthakumar