The captioned writ petition is filed by the

petitioner

3

plaintiff

feeling

aggrieved

by

the

imposition of penalty and determination of deficit

stamp duty by the Trial Court. The said order is under

challenge.

2. The present captioned writ petition is filed by

the petitioner 3 plaintiff, who has instituted a suit for

3

specific performance of contract in O.S.No.34/2017.

The suit document is the agreement to sell dated

29.12.2014, which indicates that the owner has

parted with possession in favour of the agreement

holder. The petitioner contention is that the very

execution of the suit agreement is denied by the

owner. It is also contended that respondent Nos.1

and 2 3 defendant Nos.1 and 2 pursuant to the

execution of the suit agreement have meddled with

the property by executing sale deed in favour of

respondent No.3 - defendant No.3 and in the said

registered sale deed, there is a recital indicating

handing over possession. Therefore, he would contend

that the suit document, which is an agreement to sell,

is sufficiently stamped and therefore, a contention is

raised that the suit agreement cannot be treated as a

conveyance in view of the defence set up by the

respondents 3 defendants.

4

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Perused the order under challenge.

4. It is more than a trite law that while

interpreting the document under challenge, it would

be irrelevant to explore and examine the pleadings of

rival parties. The pleading of parties are of no

consequences to interpret and are not relevant while

impounding a document. The recitals of the document

alone are relevant and have to be looked to ascertain

nature of document. If suit agreement indicates that

owner had delivered the possession pursuant to

execution of agreement, then the same amounts to

conveyance and the provisions under of Article 20 of

the Stamp Act are applicable. Consequently, the

stamp duty has to be determined in terms of Article

5(e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that the learned Judge was

5

justified in impounding the document and has rightly

determined the deficit stamp duty and consequent

penalty on the document impounded.

5. However, having impounded the documents

and having determined the deficit stamp duty and

consequent penalty, the learned Judge was required

to further act in terms of under Sections 37 and 38 of

the Karnataka Stamp Act. The Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of UNITED PRECISION

ENGINEERS

PRIVATE

LIMITED

VS.

KIOCL

LIMITED reported in ILR 2016 KAR 1707 has held

that the Court after impounding the document, is

required to dispatch an authenticated copy of the

instrument along with deficit stamp duty and penalty

collected to the Deputy Commissioner, as a power is

vested with the Deputy Commissioner under Section

38 of the Karnataka Stamp Act to hold an enquiry and

6

reduce the penalty in the manner as provided.

Therefore, I do not find any error in the order under

challenge.

6. I would find that there is some error in the

procedure

adopted

by

the

learned

Judge

post

impounding document. To that limited extent, the

petitioner is entitled for the relief and therefore, a

mandamus issues to the Court below to act in terms

of the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in the judgment cited supra. For the

foregoing reasons, I pass the following;

ORDER

The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

The learned Judge is directed to pass

further orders in the light of the principles

laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of UNITED PRECISION

ENGINEERS

PRIVATE

LIMITED

VS.

7

KIOCL LIMITED reported in ILR 2016

KAR 1707.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM