IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 25956 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 26161 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
P S MANJAPPA, S/O SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O KARIGANUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577219.
(BY SRI. YOGESH V KOTEMATH FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ANASUYAMMA, W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, D/O LATE K NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD WORK, 2. SHIVAGANGAMMA, W/O THIPPESWAMY, D/O LATE K NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/AT KARIGANUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577219.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING ORDERS DATED 1.3.2017 & 12.4.2017 IN O.S.NO.36/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No.36/2017 has knocked at the doors of writ Court for assailing the orders dated 01.03.2017 & 12.04.2017 whereby the subject Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.1995 having been impounded, the learned trial judge has levied duty & penalty as provided under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1958. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petitions.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition papers, this Court declines to interfere in the matter for the following reasons:-
(i) the Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.1995 which contains a clause for delivery of possession needs to suffer stamp duty as if it is a conveyance under Article 20 of Schedule to the Act; admittedly, the said stamp duty has not been paid; therefore, law compels impounding of said document which the Court below has done; such a document cannot be admitted to evidence for any purpose whatsoever;
(ii) where the instrument is unduly stamped, the person concerned has not only to make good the deficient stamp duty but also paid a penalty in a sum of ten times of such deficient value; this having been resorted to, by the impugned orders, there is no error of law or facts warranting indulgence in supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed off without medaling with the impugned orders. However, the Court below could not have referred the instrument to the Registry for working out the deficient value of stamp and penalty, since it is duty of the Court itself to undertake that exercise. Ordered accordingly.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv