KAMALAWWA Vs. SIDDAPPA MUDUKAPPA MANENAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 12/3/2020 as per Annexure-A. The present petitioner has instituted the suit for partition and separate possession in O .S .No .97/2010. The respondents/defendants on receipt of summons contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The defendant/respondents have taken a contention that the plaintif f has relinquished her share by executing relinquishment deed. When respondents/defendants tendered relinquishment deed in evidence, present petitioner/plaintiff, ob jected on the premise that the document is not sufficiently stamped and the same is unregistered. The learned Judge having heard and examined the rival contentions passed the impugned order directing respondent/defendants to pay requisite stamp duty on the documents . Learned judge has also observed that the documents relied on by the respondent/defendants can be marked for collateral purpose.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend before this Court that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge is contrary to the settled proposition laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court. He would submit to this Court that the learned Judge having found that document is not su fficiently stamped was required to follow procedure contemplated under Ss. 33 and 34 of the Stamp Act. His grievance is that, the learned Judge without impounding the documents has determined the additional stamp penalty payable on the document. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Miss. Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels Vs. Miss. P. Gunavathy reported in 2013(1) Kar. L.J. 374. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another Vs.Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others reported in (2015)16 SCC 787. Placing reliance on these two judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that unregistered and un-stamped relinquishment deed is not admissible in evidence and the same cannot be used for collateral purpose for establishing division o f joint property. He would further submit to this Court that the Apex Court was of the view that it can be relied for collateral purpose to indicate severance of title and nature o f possession of various sharers only if it is impounded and party relying on the same pays deficit stamp duty and penalty.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/defendants submits that the order make challenge clearly indicates that learned Judge has impounded the document and therefore the order under challenge does not suf fer from in firmity and is liable to be dismissed.