The trial court must provide clear findings regarding the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act before impounding documents.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2495/2013 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated 28.08.2024, whereby the application filed by respondent Nos.13 and 15/defendant Nos.13 and 15 under Sections 33 and 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act was allowed by the trial Court which directed the petitioners to pay a deficit stamp duty and 10 times penalty on the document styled as 'Full and Final Settlement agreement' dated 05.12.2003 and document styled as 'Memorandum of Understanding' dated 18.03.2009 by impounding both the documents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 and 15 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, the respondents/defendants having contested the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim. During the course of which, the petitioners sought to mark several documents in their evidence out of which, the documents were sought to be impounded at the instance of the defendant Nos.13 and 15 viz., 'Full and Final Settlement agreement' dated 05.12.2003 and document styled as 'Memorandum of Understanding' dated 18.03.2009 by filing the instant application. The petitioners/plaintiffs contested the said application filed by the respondents under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act inter alia contending that the stamp duty paid on the said documents was sufficient and proper. After hearing the parties, the trial court directed impounding of the said documents by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims inasmuch as while the petitioners/plaintiffs contend that the aforesaid two documents had been sufficiently and properly stamped, defendant Nos.13 and 15 would contend that the same were not properly stamped and the trial Court was justified in directing impounding of the said documents, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has not rendered any finding as regards to the provision in the schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act under which the said document was required to be stamped, which is a precondition before directing impounding of the documents.

5. In this context, it is relevant to extract the findings of the trial Court, which are as under:

"REASONS

This suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of the contract and totally 8 issues were framed and 1 additional issues was framed. When the case was posted for plaintiff arguments the plaintiff filed an application along with the document to restore the stage for further chief of PW1 to mark the documents.

The contention of the defendants No.13 and 15 is that, these documents are filed by the plaintiff to mark on his behalf through PW1 and these documents are in the safe custody of the court and in full and final settlement agreement dated 15.12.2003 and huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs involved and it is unregistered document executed on non judicial stamp paper of Rs.200/- and memorandum of understanding dated 18.03.2009 and also involving huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs executed in unregistered document on non judicial stamp paper of Rs.200/- and acknowledgment dated 25.06.2009 for a receipt of amount of Rs.40 lakhs which is unregistered document executed on white paper.

While perusing the full and final settlement dated 15.12.2003 it was executed by Sri.Papanna and others in favour of Sri.Shakthi Prom