N.M. THEERTHEGOWDA Vs. Y.M. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant filed O.S. No. 610 of 2015 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dtd. 4/11/1996, stated to have been executed by the respondents. The appellant also prayed to set aside the sale deed dtd. 13/8/2003, which the first and second respondents executed in favour of the third respondent. The appellant claims possession of suit schedule property as part performance under the agreement of sale dtd. 4/11/1996. An agreement of sale coupled with possession is deemed to be a conveyance warranting payment of ad valorem stamp duty. Admittedly, the suit agreement is written on stamp papers worth Rs.200.00. Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule of the Act, read with amended Stamp Act No. 8 of 1995, prescribes the duty as payable on a conveyance. The appellant has not produced the original agreement in O.S. No. 610 of 2015. The explanation offered by him is that the agreement is filed in a connected matter between the parties. From the order dtd. 14/8/2015, it appears that the appellant expressed readiness to pay duty and penalty on the certified copy of the agreement of sale dtd. 4/11/1996, now filed along with the plaint. The trial court, by order dtd. 14/8/2015, held as follows:

(3.) The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 36970 of 2015, assailing the trial court's order dtd. 14/8/2015. The appellant argued that the deficit stamp duty should alone be collected at the time of the passing of the judgment and decree, and the levy of penalty is illegal and erroneous. The High Court, through the order impugned in the appeal, rejected.