The court established that insufficiently stamped documents cannot be admitted in evidence unless the required stamp duty and penalties are paid, emphasizing the distinct roles of courts and the District Registrar in this process.

JUDGMENT :

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Civil Appeals arise from an order dated 14.09.2021 in Review Petition No. 340 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 30734 of 2019.

3. In these Civil Appeals, the scope of Sections 33, 34, 37, and 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’) arises for consideration.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The appellant filed O.S. No. 295 of 2013 for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property consists of agricultural land in Kavoor village of Mangalore taluk. The prayer for injunction rests on the plea that the respondent entered into the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 with the appellant. The appellant claims to have been put in possession of the plaint schedule property as part performance under the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 by the respondent. The other clauses covered by the agreement are not adverted to as part of the narrative, for they are of little relevance for disposing of the Civil Appeals.

5. It is alleged that the respondent, contrary to the possession given as part performance under the suit agreement, tried to dispossess the appellant. This led to exchange of notices between the parties. The sheet anchor in the appellant’s narrative is that the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 exists between the parties, and in part performance thereunder, the appellant was put in possession of the plaint schedule property by the respondent. Contrary to the ad idem of the parties in putting the appellant in possession, the respondent was trying to dispossess the appellant from the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. Briefly narrated, the possession claimed under the agreement of sale is sought to be protected through the prayer for perpetual injunction.

6. The respondent denies the execution of the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999. The appellant, since claims possession through the agreement of sale, the suit agreement shall be treated as a conveyance. The suit agreement is insufficiently stamped. Therefore, the document is inadmissible in evidence unless the document is made compliant with the requirements of the Act.

6.1. The respondent filed an application before the trial court under Section 33 of the Act to impound the suit agreement to collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty in accordance with the Act. By order dated 10.11.2016, the trial court sent the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 to the District Registrar for determination of requisite stamp duty and penalty payable on the agreement of sale. The record discloses that the District Registrar expressed inability to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable on the suit agreement for want of the name of the village, hence, returned the instrument to the trial court. Thereafter, the appellant filed a memo dated 26.04.2017 purporting to clarify the name of the village in the schedule of the agreement of sale. The said effort was opposed by the respondent, namely ex-post-facto incorporation of material details into the suit agreement; gaps in the agreement are not filled up by the appellant to the detriment of the respondent. The trial court, agreeing with the respondent’s objection, rejected the memo dated 26.04.2017. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 8506 of 2018 challenging the trial court’s order dated 12.08.2017 before the High Court of Karnataka. On 10.08.2018, the Writ Petition was disposed of, and the operative portion reads thus:

“Accordingly, in modification of the impugned order dated 12.08.2017, it is directed that a copy of the memo filed by the plaintiff may be sent by the Trial Court to the office of the District Registrar for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the order and proposition with reference to the name of the village mentioned by the plaintiff/pet