IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50643 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. V.B. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE P BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/A V AIDYANATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TLAUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
..PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA.R.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. YESHODA, W/O LATE M.C.ASHWATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SRI. M.A.YATISHGOWDA, S/O LATE M.C.ASHWATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3. SRI. M.C.SHANKAR, S/O LATE CHANNAIAH @ CHIKKONU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 4. SRI. MOHAN, S/O LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING IN A HOUSE AT SOMEGOWDA STREET, MADDUR TOWN, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2019 AND MARKING OF DOCUMENT AS EX-D26 ON 14.10.2019 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MADDUR IN O.S.NO.16/2007 AND ORDER FOR IMPOUND THE DOCUMENT EXD-26 IN QUESTION FOR NON- PAYMENT OF DUTY AND PENALTY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in a specific performance suit in O.S.No.16/2007, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 27.09.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-G, whereby, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madduru, having rejected his application filed under Sections 33 & 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, has held that the subject agreement to sell dated 23.06.2006 is duly stamped and therefore, is entitled to be marked in evidence.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the learned trial judge having examined the Report of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar has come to a conclusion that the subject document is duly stamped.
3. The contention of the petitioner that the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar by his Report dated 28.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, has opined that the franking appearing on the subject instrument is not genuine and therefore, there is nil stamp duty and consequently the Court below could not have recorded a finding in variance with the that Report is bit difficult to countenance at this stage.
Regard being had to the peculiar facts of this case, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to establish his contention that the franking appearing on the subject document is a fraud/fabricated one notwithstanding the cursory finding in the impugned order.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE DS