Comparative Citation: 2011 (1) KCCR 41

The petitioner has instituted suit against the respondent seeking specific performance of the contract under the agreements of sale dated 18.05.2004 and 20.08.2004. The agreements having been produced along with the suit, the trial court while considering I.As.No.1 & 2 filed seeking order of temporary injunction with reference to the claim made by the petitioner that, the possession of the suit property has been delivered to him, has found that, the sale agreement dated 20.08.2004 contains the recital regarding delivery of possession to the plaintiff and that, the agreement is insufficiently stamped. It has directed its office to calculate the duty and penalty on the agreements of sale dated 18.05.2004 and 20.08.2004. The office of the trial court has calculated the deficit stamp duty payable at Rs.74,800/- and the penalty at 10 times thereof i.e., Rs.7,48,000/-. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this writ petition to set-aside the order directing the payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty amounting to Rs.8,22,800/-.

2. Sri S. Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that, having regard to the fact that the agreements having not been sought to be produced and admitted in evidence, the trial court without even ordering the impounding of the instrument, has erred in directing its office to calculate the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable and further, in directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Learned counsel submits that, the trial of the suit having not commenced and the agreements having not been sought to be admitted in evidence, the impugned order is illegal. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the decision of this court in the case of Lakshminarayanachar vs. Narayan & Another, reported in 1969 (2) Mys.L.J 299.

3. Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and Mr. Zaheer Ahmed, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand would support the impugned order.

4. In view of the rival contentions and the record of the writ petition, which I have perused, the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned order is illegal?

5. Chapter II of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act) provides for stamp-duties. Section 3 is the charging Section. Chapter III of the Act provides for adjudication with regard to proper stamps. Chapter IV deals with instruments not duly stamped. Section 33 casts a duty upon a person who has authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a public office before whom the instrument is produced, if it appears to him that the same is not duly stamped, to impound the same. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act lays down the procedure for undertaking the process of impounding. Section 34 provides that an instrument shall be inadmissible in evidence, if the same is not duly stamped. Section 35 provides that admission of an instrument where not to be questioned. Section 37 provides for mode and manner in which the instrument impounded is to be dealt with.

6. The Legislature has, in Section 34 of the Act, has used the words “for any purpose whatsoever”. Thus, the purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be relevant for not invoking the provisions noticed supra.

7. According to the petitioner, the agreements noticed supra were executed by the respondent. The petitioner claims the payment of consideration amount and delivery of possession of the property, which is the subject matter of the agreements. In the plaint, it has been made clear that, the plaintiff was put in possession of suit schedule property vide agreement of sale dated 20.08.2004, as part performance of the contract and the said agreement is in continuation of the agreement of sale dated 18.05.2004. The plaintiff has asserted that, from the date of agreement of sale dated 20.08.2004, he has been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedul