KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
G. N. Sabhahit, A. K. Laxmeshwar, S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy, JJ.
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority – Petitioner
Versus
M.V. Chandrashekhar and others – Respondents
Civil Referred Case No. 5 of 1981
Decided On : 14-09-1984
Stamp Duty - Lease Deeds - Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Section 54(1) - Article 30(c), Article 12 - The court provided an opinion on the stamp duty payable on lease deeds and the nature of the security deposit. The court held that the security deposit is not a premium or fine as per Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and is not liable to duty under Article 30(c). The court also ruled that the instrument is not chargeable to stamp duty as a bond under Article 12 but is chargeable as a 'Security Bond' under Article 47 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
Fact of the Case:
The reference related to the stamp duty payable on three lease deeds for portions of coffee estates. The controversy was regarding the stamp duty on the annual rent reserved under each lease deed and the exemption claimed for agricultural lease.
Finding of the Court:
The court provided an opinion on the nature of the security deposit and the stamp duty payable, ruling that the security deposit is not a premium or fine and is chargeable as a 'Security Bond' under the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the security deposit and the stamp duty payable on the lease deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the security deposit is not a premium or fine and is chargeable as a 'Security Bond' under the Act.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference by providing its opinion and ordered the return of the original papers to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.
JUDGEMENT
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.
This is a reference under Section 54(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The reference relates to the stamp duty payable on the three lease deeds which have been impounded by the Sub-Registrar, Koppa, when they were presented for registration.
2. The lease deeds were presented by one M. V. Chandrasekhar on 21-4-1980 as the lessor, representing his minor son, M. C. Indumouli. The documents in question are the lease deeds in respect of three portions of coffee estates known as "Chandra Estate" belonging to the minor. All the lease deeds are similar in nature and are executed for the same purpose on stamp paper of Rs. 5/-.
3. The Sub-Registrar, Koppa, impounded the documents and called upon the presenter to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 750/-; Rs. 750/- and Rs. 600/- on the three lease deeds respectively. Being aggrieved by the notice issued by the Sub-Registrar, the presenter filed an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who has referred the matter for our opinion under Section 54(1) of the Act, on the following questions :
"(a) Whether the "Security Deposit" is 'premium' or 'fine' as per Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether it is liable to duty under Article 30(c) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
(b) If not whether it is a 'Bond' as defined in Section 2(1)(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and whether liable to stamp duty under Article 12 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
(c) If the document does not fall under any of the categories aforesaid, then what is the correct nature of the deed and what stamp duty is payable thereon".
4. We find from the reference papers that the controversy before the Sub-Registrar and before the Appellate Authority was in respect of the stamp duty sought to be levied on the annual rent reserved under each lease deed and the exemption claimed in respect thereof, on the ground that is an agricultural lease and eligible for exemption under the exemption clause in Article 30.
5. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has not sought our opinion on this aspect in the reference. However, the learned Government Advocate and the Advocate for the Presenter have advanced arguments on this aspect also before us. But, we do not like to express any opinion on this question, since there is no reference on this point.
6. Let us now examine one sample lease deed for the purpose of offering our opinion on the questions referred to above. The lease deed is executed at Bangalore on 1st January 1980 between M, V. Chandrasekhar as father and natural guardian of his minor son in favour of Mrs. M. C. Swarnalakshmi his wife, in her capacity as the trustee of the Manjunatheswara Trust under which she claims that she is authorised to take estate on lease. The lease is for one year. The yearly rent reserved is Rs. 25,000/-. (Lease Deed in CRC No. 4 of 1981). The object of the lease as is set-out in Clause (2) of the document is :
"(a) To harvest and market the Coffee Crops as well as any other crops whether plantation crops, commercial crops, agricultural crops, or otherwise and to retain the sale proceeds thereof for the Lessee's benefit and also to otherwise deal with the harvested crop in such manner as the Lessee may deem fit, and to do so to the Lessee's advantage and benefit and to the exclusion of any benefit therefrom to the Lessor, Provided, however, the Lessee shall not cut any trees or remove any plants to the detriment of the Demised Coffee Estate without the consent of the Lessor;
(b) To erect, construct and maintain such engines, machinery, buildings, structures, cottages and other things necessary for the purpose of maintaining, running and improving the Demised Coffee Estate or otherwise in the interest and to t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.