A document admitted in evidence cannot be questioned for insufficiency of stamp duty, but courts have a mandatory duty to impound such documents regardless of any objections raised.

ORDER :

Lalitha Kanneganti, J.

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XV in O.S.No.153/2017 dated 27.06.2019 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.153/2017 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, seeking a decree of specific performance of contract dated 10.11.2014 by directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the plaint, it is contended that the mother of the defendants was the sole owner of the property and an Agreement of Sale dated 10.11.2014 was executed between the plaintiff and the mother of the defendants wherein the 2^nd defendant is one of the signatory as witness to the document which has been registered before the Sub-Registrar office at Holenarasipura. The sale consideration mentioned in the agreement is Rs.2,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by way of Cheque No.156481. Thereafter, the mother of the defendants passed away and when the plaintiff had requested the defendants to execute the Sale Deed, the defendants have failed to execute the same. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the suit.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the trial Court has framed issues on 03.10.2018 and the matter was posted for evidence of the plaintiff on 05.11.2018. The plaintiff had entered the witness box on 05.11.2018 and the documents that are produced by the plaintiff including the 2014 Agreement were admitted in evidence and was marked as Exhibit P-1 and it is the case that the respondents did not raise any objections on any of the documents marked into evidence. On 20.12.2018, the plaintiff prayed time to lead further evidence. Subsequently on 05.02.2019, the plaintiff marked additional documents and the matter was posted to 19.03.2019 for cross-examination of PW-1.

4. Thereafter, on 19.03.2019, defendant Nos.1 and 5 filed an application under Sections 33 and 34 of the KARNATAKA STAMP ACT , 1957 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impounding of the 2014 Agreement for collection of duty and penalty. The plaintiff had filed his objections to the said application and contended that since the 2014 Agreement has already been marked as an exhibit, there is no question of paying duty and penalty and the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The application came to be allowed by way of the impugned order and the plaintiff is before this Court questioning the same.

5. This Court has perused the order impugned. The trial Court had observed that it is the specific case of the defendants that after the document is marked in evidence, it was noticed that the possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff under an agreement of sale and further on reference to the payment of duty only a sum of Rs.200/- has been collected apart from scanning fee and other fee and sub registrar ought to have collected the amount namely the stamp duty on the market value of the property. On that ground, the defendant prays Ex.P1 to be impounded for collection of proper duty and penalty as envisaged under Section 33 and 34 of KARNATAKA STAMP ACT . The trial Court had also observed that the market value of the property mentioned in the agreement is Rs.2,00,000/- but the same is written on stamp paper of Rs.6/-. As per Article 5(e)(i) read with Article 20(III) of the Act, the proper duty payable would be eight percent of the consideration mentioned in the agreement. Eight percent of Rs.2,00,000/- woul