Back
Karnataka High Court
Mahadeva - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation - Respondent
Decided On : 11-29-02
C.R.P. : 908 of 2002
KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 - Section 34 - Revision Petition - Whether the Trial Court was justified in demanding the payment of duty and penalty in terms of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 On an unregistered and unstamped sale deed relied upon by the petitioner as a condition precedent for letting the same into evidence in proof of a collateral transaction? Held, Court below was justified.
[Tirath S. Thakur, J.] - Whether the amount of duty and penalty on the sale deed relied upon by him could be determined by the Court itself or a reference to the Registrar of Stamps was necessary. There is no provision in Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which would envisage a reference to the Registrar of Stamps for determining the duty payable on any instrument. The scheme of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, also does not envisage any such reference being made before the document could be marked. The amount of duty payable on the sale deed (in the absence of any material to show that the property had been under valued) is relatable to the consideration that was paid and received by the parties to the transaction. The penalty amount leviable on the instrument also didn t require or call for any enquiry which could possibly call for a reference to the Registrar, The Court below was therefore justified in holding that the duty payable on the instrument as also the penalty had to be calculated by the Court and not by the Registrar as argued by the plaintiff.
Cases Referred: AIR 1946 PC 51
Followed: 1969(1) SCWR 341; AIR 1963 SC 70; AIR 1919 PC 44; 1971(2) MLJ 161; 1973(1) MLJ 541.
Relied on: AIR 1978 SC 1393; 2001 Crl. L.J. 1254; ILR 2002 Kar 3369.
Exemption under the Act against the use of unregistered document
(INDIAN) REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - Section 49 -Unregistered document -relied to prove possession -admission of -can be admitted for proving any collateral issues -prerequisite -payment of deficient duty with penalty.
[Tirath S. Thakur, J.] -Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, stipulates the effect of non-registration of documents which are under Section 17 of the said Act compulsorily registrable. In inter alia provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered but which is not so registered shall affect the immovable property comprised therein or confer any power to adopt or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered. Proviso to Section 49, however, makes an exception to the general rule against the use of such unregistered document. It permits an unregistered document affecting immovable property to be received among others for the purpose of proving any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument. The legal position as regards the use of documents that are compulsorily registrable but have not so been registered is clear from a plaint reading of the proviso itself.
Cases Referred: (1969) 1 SCWR 341; AIR 1963 SC 70; AIR 1919 PC 44; 1971 (2) Mys.L.J 161; 1973 (1) Mys.L.J 541
Followed:
AIR 1946 PC 51; AIR 1978 SC 1393; AIR 2001 SC 1158; 2002 (3) Kar.L.J 551.
Demand for penalty and duty on unregistered and unstamped document
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Section 115 - Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 -Section 34 - Revision Petition -Whether the Trial Court was justified in demanding the payment of duty and penalty in terms of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 on an unregistered and unstamped sale deed relied upon by the petitioner as a condition precedent for letting the same into evidence in proof of a collateral transaction? Held, Court below was justified.
[Tirath S. Thakur, J.] - The penalty amount leviable on the instrument also didn t require or call for any enquiry which could possibly call for a reference to the Registrar, The Court below was therefore justified in holding that the duty payable on the instrument as also the penalty had to be calculated by the Court and not by the Registrar as argued by the plaintiff.
Cases Referred: AIR 1946 PC 51
Followed: 1969(1) SCWR 341; AIR 1963 SC 70; AIR 1919 PC 44; 1971(2) MLJ 161; 1973(1) MLJ 541
Relied on: AIR 1978 SC 1393; 2001 Crl. L.J. 1254; ILR 2002 Kar 3369.
Amendment of plaint
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Section 115 - CRP filed -praying to set aside the order of the Add. Civil Judge and to allow the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, granting petitioner s prayer for amendment of his plaint - Claiming very heavy compensatory cost and damages of Rs. 3,99,37,945/- from the Corporation for it ruined the project that had been started by him - Further amendment to add on the claims for the subsequent periods and to enhance his claim to Rs. 25,79,14,000/- -Disallowed by the Trial Court - Held, the earlier amendment itself has pushed the figure upto approximately Rs. 4 crores, which is more than sufficient to cover the claims of the petitioner assuming they can be established and his present amendment which bears absolutely no relation to the facts of the case or to reality will necessarily have to be disallowed.
[M. F. Saldanha, J. ] - While the petitioner is certainly entitled to press his claim and prove it is he can and obtain appropriate reliefs from the court, it is equally necessary for the court to put the brakes on the type of claims that are made. The earlier amendment itself has pushed the figure upto approximately Rs. 4 Crores, which is more than sufficient to cover the claims of the petitioner assuming they can be established and his present amendment which bears absolutely no relation to the facts of the case or to reality will necessarily have to be disallowed. The petitioner is entitled to agitate his claim under all heads but that does not mean to say that indiscriminate amendments can be carried out incorporating astronomical figures. The suit itself is an old one. The present amendment, was unnecessary. It is more desirable that the court hears the parties and disposes off the procee- ding expeditiously.
( 1 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in these revision-petitions is whether the trial Court was justified in demanding the payment of duty and penalty in terms of S. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 on an unregistered and unstamped sale deed relied upon by the petitioner as a condition precedent for letting the same into evidence in proof of a collateral transaction. The question arises in the following circumstances :
( 2 ) THE petitioner is plaintiff in O. S. No. 899/1997 pending trial before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Mysore. The suit prays for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The title to the suit property is traced to an unregistered sale deed dated 20-12-1989 allegedly executed by the father of the plaintiff in his favour. The sale deed was in the course of the evidence of the plaintiff produced by him to show his possession over the property. Since the document is unregistered, an objection to its admissibility was raised which the Court below overruled in terms of its order dated 18-1-2002 holding that an unregistered deed could also be admitted into evidence for purposes of proving a collateral transaction. The Court, however, held that since the document was unstamped, the same could not be used for any purpose having regard to the provisions contained in S. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and accordingly directed the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and the penalty in terms of the proviso to S. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, before the document could be exhibited. The correctness of the said order has been assailed by the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 799/2002. The connected C. R. P. No. 908/2002 filed by the petitioner challenges an order dated 1-2-2002 passed by the trial Court whereby it has dismissed an application filed by the plaintiff seeking reference of the document to the District Registrar for determining the duty and the penalty payable on the same.
( 3 ) APPEARING for the petitioner-Mr. Shetty argued that an unregistered document which was compulsorily registrable under S. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, could be relied upon and admitted in evidence to prove a collateral transaction as envisaged by proviso to S. 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. To that extent, the Court below was according to Mr. Shetty justified in overruling the objection raised by the defendant to the admissibility of the document. Inasmuch as the plaintiff was making use of the document in question only for proving his possession over the suit property he was doing so for a collateral purpose. That being the position, the direction issued by the Court below for payment of the duty and penalty in terms of proviso to S. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was untenable for, having regard to the fact that, any insistence upon payment of stamp duty and the penalty in respect of a document being let into evidence only for a collateral purposes would in substance amount to preventing the use of the document for a purpose for which it could under the Registration Act be legitimately used. The demand for duty and penalty was according to Mr. Shetty in derogation of the proviso to S. 49 in so far as the same permitted the use of document for proof of a collateral transaction.
( 4 ) MR. Papanna, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the provisions of S. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, did not permit use of any instrument for any purpose whatsoever if the same was not duly stamped. The use of an unregistered and unstamped document for proving any collateral transaction was also forbidden unless the stamp duty payable on the document was paid together with the penalty recoverable in terms of the proviso to S. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. There was according to Mr. Papanna no conflict between the provisions of
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
