LAWS(KAR)-2010-11-12

S VIDHYA Vs. R S VENKATA REDDY

Decided On November 04, 2010
S. VIDHYA Appellant
V/S
R.S. VENKATA REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has instituted suit against the Respondent seeking specific performance of the contract under the agreements of sale dated 18.05.2004 and 20.08.2004. The agreements having been produced along with the suit, the Trial Court while considering I. As No. 1 and 2 filed seeking order of temporary injunction with reference to the claim made by the Petitioner that, the possession of the suit property has been delivered to him, has found that, the sale agreement dated 20.08.2004 contains the recital regarding delivery of possession to the Plaintiff and that, the agreement is insufficiently stamped. It has directed its office to calculate the duty and penalty on the agreements of sale dated 18.05.2004 and 20.08.2004. The office of the Trial Court has calculated the deficit stamp duty payable at Rs. 74,800/- and the penalty at 10 times thereof i.e., Rs. 7,48,000/-. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff has filed this writ petition to set-aside the order directing the payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 8,22,800/-.

(2.) Sri S. Kalyan Basavaraj, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would submit that, having regard to the fact that the agreements having not been sought to be produced and admitted in evidence, the Trial Court without even ordering the impounding of the instrument, has erred in directing its office to calculate the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable and further, in directing the Petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Learned Counsel submits that, the trial of the suit having not commenced and the agreements having not been sought to be admitted in evidence, the impugned order is illegal. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the decision of this Court in the case of Lakshminarayanachar v. Narayan and Anr.,1969 2 MadLJ 299.

(3.) Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent and Mr. Zaheer Ahmed, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand would support the impugned order.