IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.30734/2019(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SEETHARAMA SHETTY S/O LATE SANJEEVA SHETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT ‘DADAS’, ASAIGOLI, KONAJE, MANGALORE TALUK. … PETITIONER (BY SRI O. SHIVARAMA BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. MONAPPA SHETTY S/O LATE LOKAYYA SHETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT KOLALA BAIL HOUSE, KAVOOR, MANGALORE-15.
REP. BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN MRS.HEMALATHA W/O MONAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KOLALA BAIL HOUSE, KAVOOR, MANGALORE-15 … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.295/2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALORE, D.K. AND THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO. VIII TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit O.S.No.295/2013 is knocking at the doors of this Court for assailing the order dated 22.06.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby, the learned V Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, has rejected his application in IA No.8 filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 23.01.2019 whereby, the subject agreement having been found unduly stamped, deficient stamp value and the ten times penalty thereon were directed to be made good.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this court declines to interfere in the matter because:
a) the subject document is an agreement dated 26.09.1999 and Clause (3) thereof speaks of delivery of possession of the property and therefore, the stamp duty ought to have been paid as if it is a conveyance; this having not been done, the trial Court after impounding the said document, has computed the deficit stamp duty and directed the petitioner to pay the same along with penalty as prescribed under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957; there being no lacuna, this order, the rejection of the application for review cannot be faltered;
b) the contention of the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CHILAKURI GANGULAPPA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANPALLE AND ANOTHER, 2001(4) SCC 197, the document ought to have been referred to the Deputy Commissioner for working out deficit stamp value and payment of penalty is bit difficult to accept inasmuch as, the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act are in variance with that of Andhra Pradesh Act which the Court was examining; in the absence of pari materia provision, the decision is uninvokable; and, c) in fact, it is the consistent view of this Court that the deficit stamp duty should be calculated & collected by the Court itself along with the penalty vide decision in the case of SUMAN v. VINAYAKA AND OTHERS, 2014(1) KAR.L.J.575.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands disposed off, in limine.
However, the petitioner is granted a period of four months for payment of deficit stamp duty & the penalty as has been directed by the Court below.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY