R NATAYANASWAMY REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of Counsel on both sides, is taken for hearing on the main matter as pleadings are completed and the learned counsel are ready for addressing arguments on merits and the matter is heard for disposal.

(2.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has called in question the legality of orders passed by the third respondent Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and Headquarters Asst. to the District Registrar, Bangalore Urban district, calling upon the petitioner to pay an additional stamp duty in a sum of rs. 86,050/- as per an order dated 23-6-2000 passed under Section 45-A of the karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (the Act for short) (copy at Annexure-D) and the appellate order dated 6-3-2002 passed in S. A. P. 7/2001-02 by the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner for Stamps i. e. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in karnataka, the second respondent herein, affirming the order passed by the Deputy commissioner and dismissing the appeal. Petitioners have sought for quashing of these two orders on the premise that the stamp duty of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- paid on the instrument dated 10-7-1999 which they had termed as a Partition Deed and presented for registration on 15-3-2000 was the correct stamp duty and there was no question of any under-valuation being involved in the payment of stamp duty on the partition deed dated 10-7-1999; that the fourth respondent Sub-Registrar was not justified in referring the matter to the third respondent Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and headquarters Asst. to the District Registrar, bangalore Urban District, on the premise that there was under-valuation and for determination of the proper stamp duty. It is contended that the impugned orders are illegal in law and are liable to be quashed.

(3.) SRI Nanjundaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders at Annexures d and F are not sustainable in law; that the authorities concerned have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the instrument in question is one which is to be treated as a part settlement deed and a part annuity and that the authorities are clearly in error in demanding duty from the petitioner on the premise that the transaction involved is in the nature of an annuity and a settlement combined in the deed. Learned Counsel submits that the instrument clearly indicated that the properties which were the subject matter of partition were all joint family properties and that it was partitioned amongst the members of the family namely the petitioner, the Kartha of the family, his wife and children in accordance with the terms agreed amongst them; that there is absolutely no scope to read an instrument of this nature as either an instrument depicting a transaction of annuity or a transaction of settlement; that the third respondent Deputy Commissioner has misread the instrument and the implications of the terms therein; that it could never have been treated as an instrument depicting an annuity or an instrument in the nature of settlement and mulcting liability on the petitioner to pay stamp duty on the instrument either in the nature of annuity or an instrument in the nature of settlement, is clearly unsustainable in law.