The court reaffirmed that a trial court must impound insufficiently stamped documents, regardless of their registration status, ensuring compliance with the Karnataka Stamp Act.

ORDER

Petitioners being the plaintiffs in OS.No.39/2010 are seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.04.2018 dismissing IA Nos.8 and 9 filed under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act , 1957.

2. Heard Sri. Chidambara G.S., learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents has not addressed his arguments. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners as plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the joint owners and that three sale deeds referred to therein, executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 are not binding on them. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are the purchasers of the property under the sale deeds appeared before the Court and filed the written statements taking specific contention that the sale deeds executed in their favour were under valued for the purpose of registration and for payment of stamp duty. However, they got marked the sale deeds as per Ex.D6 dated 29.06.2005, Ex.D7 dated 17.07.2006 and Ex.D12. Plaintiffs filed the application Nos.8 and 9 under Section 33 of the Stamp Act requesting the trial Court to impound the said document as the same are insufficiently stamped. The trial Court proceeded to reject both the applications only on the ground that the sale deeds are already registered and therefore, the same cannot be impounded. The reasoning given by the trial Court and the order passed is illegal, perverse and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in ' SRI.R.MAHESH AND ANOTHER VS. B.P.VENUGOPAL '1 in support of his contention that even when the document is admitted in evidence, a duty is cast on the trial Court to impound the documents when it is brought to its notice that the document in question is not sufficiently stamped. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on Section 2 (j), 2 (mm) and Article 20 of the Karnataka Stamp Act in support of his contention and prays for quashing the impugned order as the same is perverse and illegal.

5. The short point involved in this case is with regard to the impugned order passed by the trial Court holding that the sale deeds marked as Ex.D6, 7 and 12 are not liable for impounding as the same are already registered and marked as an exhibit.

6. Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act deals with instruments not duly stamped and Section 33 empowers every person having authority by law including the Court, to examine and impound the instruments. Section 2 (j) of the Karnataka Stamp Act defines the word ‘instrument’, which is an inclusive definition. It doesn’t make any difference between the document which is already registered or unregistered. Article 20 of the Karnataka Stamp Act deals with payment of stamp duty for conveyance on the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of conveyance.

7. The word ‘market value’ is defined under Section 2 (mm) of the Karnataka Stamp Act , which means the price which such property would have fetched in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner or Appellate authority etc., if sold in the open market on the date of execution of such instrument or consideration stated in the instrument, which ever is higher.

8. In the present case admittedly defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed three sale deeds marked as Ex.D.6, 7 and 12 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 have appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement taking specific contention that they have paid the consideration amount of Rs.4,88,625/-, 3,75,