IMPORTANT POINT
Documents must be duly stamped to be admissible in evidence; the court has the authority to impound insufficiently stamped documents under the Karnataka Stamp Act.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and praying this Court to issue writ of certiorari or direction or order quashing the order dated 10.01.2022 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.281/2017, by the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, marked at Annexure-H and grant such other and further reliefs as deemed just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is that;

3.1. The petitioner is a partnership Firm constituted to carry on business of construction, real estate, land development etc. Respondent No.1 is one of the partners. The petitioner firm entered into registered agreement of sale with one Sri.Siddappa S/o. Bharamappa Donkannavar to purchase immovable agricultural land on 17.02.2014 and the said agreement of sale is cancelled on 06.08.2014.

3.2. Respondent No.1 as a partner of the petitioner firm executed an acknowledgement/consent deed, affirming the fact that, since agriculture land cannot be purchased by the petitioner firm, the same is brought in the name of his grandfather by using the firms’ funds and the same shall be transferred in accordance with law on 09.04.2015.

3.3. The said agricultural land is purchased in the name of one Sri.Irappa Shivalingappa Angadi – the grandfather of the respondent No.1, on 22.06.2015. On 16.02.2016, respondent No.1 executes an agreement that he has accepted and used the funds raised in the name of petitioner firm for his personal gains and he shall indemnify the petitioner firm.

3.4. The said Sri.Irappa Shivalingappa Angadi expired on 06.12.2016 leaving behind the present respondent No.2 as his legal heir, in whose name the revenue record of the immovable property is mutated.

3.5. The petitioner firm filed a suit in O.S.No.281/2017 before the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, seeking a decree of declaration and injunction against the respondents herein in respect of the immovable agricultural property, on 29.11.2017. The respondent No.2 filed his written statement in the said suit on 06.02.2018 and respondent No.2 filed his written statement on 23.07.2018.

3.6. On 28.08.2019, an interim application in I.A.No.V under the provisions of Sections 33, 34, 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 read with Section 151 of CPC is filed on behalf of respondent No.2, to impound the consent deed dated 09.04.2015 and agreement dated 16.02.2016 and the said application is resisted on behalf of the petitioner by filing statement of objections.

3.7. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of both the parties, passed the impugned order on 10.01.2022. On 21.01.2022, the respondent No.2 also filed memo of calculation sheet. Challenging the said order dated 10.01.2022 at Annexure-H, the petitioner filed this petition.

4. The main contention of the petitioner’s counsel in this writ petition is that;

4.1. The Trial Court without any application of the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Stamp Act’, for short) and also without determining the nature of the document and the stamp duty chargeable on such documents, the impugned order is passed and the same is not sustainable. The learned Trial Judge has erred is passing the impugned order without there being any deliberation about the provisions of the Stamp Act, which is applicable to the said documents sought to be impounded. Without there being any application of the provisions of the Stamp Act in impounding the documents styled as Consent/acknowledgment Deed dated 09.04.2015 and the Agreement dated 16.02.2016, the impugned order is non-est and the same deserves to be set aside.

4.2. The impugned order is also cryptic and does not clarify what is the rate at which the documents have to charged and the non-determ