This

petition

is

by

the

plaintiff

in

O.S.

No.142/2020 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [for short,

'the civil Court']. The petitioner has impugned the civil

Court's order dated 04.11.2022, and the civil Court by

this order has impounded Power of Attorney dated

12.09.2007 [POA] and also agreement to sell dated

18.11.2010

[Sale

Agreement]

directing

both

the

petitioner and the defendants-respondents to file memo

of calculation on the deficit stamp duty payable on the

subject POA and the Sale Agreement. The civil Court's

order reads as under:

4

"Plaintiff is examined as PW-1.

Counsel for plaintiff files list of documents

stating that at the insertion of the suit photo

copies are furnished.

The counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2

objects the marking of unregistered GPA dated

12.09.2007 and also agreement to sell dated

18.11.2010.

Staging that through GPA alienation power

is given, therefore it suffers from deficit stamp

duty and penalty as it was engrossed on stamp

paper

worth

of

Rs.200/-

only

and

also

unregistered agreement to sell 18.11.2010 it was

engrossed on stamp paper worth of Rs.200/-.

In view of submission of defendant Nos.1

and 2 stage is given for hear on deficit stamp

duty.

Counsel submits the argument may be

taken as heard.

Counsel for plaintiff also submits in case

documents suffer from defendant [sic] stamp duty

the plaintiff is ready to pay.

Both the documents are impounded by

invoking section 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act.

5

In view of on ex-facie both documents

suffer from deficit stamp duty.

Further by invoking section 34 Karnataka

Stamp Act, 10 times penalty is imposed.

Both the parties hereby directed to file

memo of calculation by producing SR value as an

[sic] of GPA and also agreement and further chief

of PW-1 by 08.11.2022."

2.

Sri D R Ravishankar, the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner, submits that indeed it was

submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the civil

Court that the Power of Attorney and the Sale

Agreement are not sufficiently stamped but the civil

Court on such submission, could not have proceeded to

opine that ex facie both the documents suffer from the

deficit stamp duty. The civil Court ought to have

examined the recitals in the POA and the Sale

Agreement to decide on whether there is any authority

to execute the transfer deeds and delivery of possession

before proceeding to opine that the documents suffer

6

from the deficit stamp duty. The contents of the

document ought to have been examined in the light of

the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act,

1957 as the question of what is proper stamp duty,

must at this stage, be decided on the contents of the

subject deeds.

It is obvious that the civil Court's impugned order

is essentially based on the submissions made. The civil

Court may have to examine the aspects as now

emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel. This Court

is of the considered view that the petitioner must

therefore have an opportunity to file an application for

review of the order and if such application is filed, the

civil Court must re-visit its impugned order dated

04.11.2022 in the light of the canvass now presented

before

this

Court

with

due

opportunity

to

the

respondents.

7

Therefore, the petition stands disposed of with

such liberty to the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AN/-