K.Y. SHAILAJA W/O. K.R. JAYARAMIAH Vs. K.R. LINGAPPA (SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS. MRS. GOWRAMMA W/O LINGAPPA AND OTHERS) AND M.R. RAKSHITH S/O M. RAMACHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /Plaintiff has instituted suit against the 1st Respondent -K.R. Lingappa (since deceased, by his L.Rs.), for specific performance of contract under an agreement of sale dated 2.6.2004. The suit has been contested. Issues have been framed and trial has commenced. The Defendant raised objections with regard to the admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 2.6.2004, on the ground that, it is insufficiently stamped. The objection was partly upheld. Aggrieved, Defendant 1 filed W.P.9227/2009. Said writ petition was allowed on 8.8.2008 by observing that, the market value of the suit schedule property will 'have to be determined on the basis of notification issued by the competent authority fixing the guideline market value of similar properties in the locality where the suit property is situated. It was held that, the duty has to be paid accordingly. It was ordered that, after ascertaining the said value, the Court shall adjudicate the stamp duty as per Article 5(e)(i) along with Article 20 of the Karnataka Stamp Act ('the Act' for short) and if the Plaintiff agrees and pays the stamp duty and penalty as adjudicated upon by the Court, the Court should send the document to the Deputy Commissioner/competent authority under the Act for making necessary endorsement on the document. The impugned order in the writ petition was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of I.A.2 in the light of the observations made therein, within 30 days from the date of communication of the order.

(2.) THE Trial Court, thereafter made a reference to the Sub -Registrar, Doddaballapur, for fixing the market value of the agreement of sale dated 2.6.2004. It also desired that, necessary endorsement on the document be made and the same be returned to the Court. The Sub -Registrar, Doddaballapur determined the market value of the property at Rs. 1,60,000/ - and sent a communication dated 9.3.2010 to the Trial Court. The stamp duty and penalty was not remitted. Hence, the Trial Court impounded the document by its order dated 21.6.2010.

(3.) IT is apparent that, the correct statement of facts has not been made by the Plaintiff before the Trial Court. The Trial Court has not been assisted in the matter of determination of stamp duty and penalty payable in terms of the order passed by this Court on 8.8.2008. On account of lack of assistance and also the misrepresentation, the impugned order has been passed.