Back
Karnataka High Court
STATE - Appellant
Versus
M.L.MANJUNATHA SHETTY - Respondent
Decided On : 01-21-72
CRC : 9 of 1971
Stamp Duty - Conveyance - Mysore Stamp Act, 1957, S. 54(1) - Art. 20, Art. 45
Fact of the Case:
The document in question was a release deed executed by Mr. J. N. A. Hobbs in favor of Sri M. L. Manjunatha Setty. The stamp duty on the document was disputed, and the court was asked to determine if it was a conveyance on sale chargeable to stamp duty under Art. 20 or a release deed chargeable under Art. 45 of the Schedule to the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the document was a conveyance on sale as defined in S. 2(d) of the Mysore Stamp Act, chargeable to stamp duty under Art. 20 of the Schedule to the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the document was a conveyance on sale or a release deed, and the court had to determine the true nature of the transaction based on the recitals in the document.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the description given to a document is not determinative of the true nature of the transaction, and the intention of the parties has to be ascertained by reading the recitals in the document as a whole. It was also noted that if an instrument falls within two or more descriptions in the Schedule, it should be charged with the highest duty. The court relied on the definition of 'conveyance' and 'sale' under the Act to determine the nature of the transaction.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the document in question was a conveyance on sale, chargeable to stamp duty under Art. 20 of the Schedule to the Act.
( 1 ) THIS is a reference under S. 54 (1) of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957 by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Mysore. The opinion sought by the Chief Controllingg Revenue Authority is as to whether the document in question dt. 4th April, 1967 described as a release deed is a conveyance on sale chargeable to stamp duty under Art. 20 of the Schedule to the Act, or as to whether the document is a release deed chargeable to stamp duty under Art. 45 of the Schedule to the Act.
( 2 ) THE document in question which is described as a release deed was executed by one Mr. J. N. A. Hobbs in his capacity as Attorney of one Mr. Robert Ormsby Oliver son of Godfrey Ryder Oliver in favour of the respondent Sri M. L. Manjunatha Setty. It is clear from the schedule to the said document that it relates to an estate known as 'sambercool estate' in Attigere village in Chikmagalur District. The document is written on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 22-50 np. The document was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar of Chikmagalur on 21st July, 1967. The Sub-Registrar impounded the document on the ground that the document is not adequately stamped and forwarded the same to the District Registrar of Chikmagalur.
( 3 ) ON 13th September, 1967, the Head-quarters Assistant to the district Registrar held that the document in question is liable to stamp duty as a conveyance under Art. 20 of the Sch. to the Act and demanded a total amount of Rs. 4,952-50 which included the penalty of Rs. 100 and also the sur-charge due to the Taluk Board amounting to Rs. 1,500.
( 4 ) THE said order of the Headquarters Assistant to the District Registrar was challenged in revision by the respondent before the Chief Controlling revenue Authority in Mysore. The revision petition was dismissed confirming the view taken by the Headquarters Assistant to the district Registrar.
( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the respondent moved this Court in WP. No. 4199 of 1968 for a direction to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to make a reference under S. 54 of the Act. This Court made an order on the 25th november, 1969 directing the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to make a reference under S. 54 of the Act.
( 6 ) IT is in obedience to the direction of this Court in the above Writ petition that the present reference has been made by the Chief Controlling revenue Authority.
( 7 ) IT is clear from the statement of the case that the contention of the respondent is that the document in question is not a conveyance as denned under S. 2 (d) of the Act, but a release deed liable to stamp duty under Item 45 of the Schedule to the Act.
( 8 ) THE only question for consideration is, as to whether the document is in substance a conveyance on sale as defined under S. 2 (d) of the act, or a release deed.
( 9 ) IT is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the document in order to examine the real character of the transaction, which reads as follows:"whereas, as a result of the negotiations between the Second party and the aforesaid Mr. J. N. A. Hobbs, as Attorney of the First party, agreed to sell and the Second Party agreed to buy the said sambercool Estate with the crop of the season 1948-49 for a price of rs. 75,000 (Seventy Five Thousand only) and the Second Party paid on the same day to the First Party's Attorney, the said Mr. J. N. A. Hobbs, a sum of Rs. 8000 (Rs. Eight thousand only) as per receipt no. 1627 dt. 29-12-1948 towards the price and whereas the balance of price was paid by the Second Party to the First Party's Attorney the said Mr. J. N. A. Hobbs, on 3rd day of February 1949 by cheque No. OZ/51-50523 on Imperial Bank of India, favouring M/s. Peirce Leslie and Co. , Ltd. , whereas the First Party's Attorney the said Mr. J. N. A. Hobbs, delivered quiet possession of the said Sambercool Estate with the crops and other produce thereon to the purchaser on the 14th day of february 1949 and the purchaser has been in possession and enjoyment of the said prope
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
