HANAMANTAPPA BEERAPPA LANGATI Vs. BASUBI @ BABUBI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To enforce an agreement of sale dated 21.7.1995, petitioner f i led O.S.124/2008 against the respondents, in the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Hubl i to pass a decree for specif ic performance. Defendants f i led I.A.8, under S.34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ("the Act" for short), to impound the suit document, on the ground that it has not suf fered the correct stamp duty. Trial Court having examined the suit document and f inding that there is a recital with regard to the purchaser having been put in possession of the property and in view of the document having not been drawn on the requisite stamp paper, the same fall ing within the def inition of 'conveyance' under the Act, I.A.8 was allowed, the suit document was impounded and the plaintiff was directed to calculate and pay the stamp duty and penalty under Article 20, in order to admit the same in evidence. Upon deposit of the stamp duty and penalty, of f ice was directed to send the impounded document along with a certif icate under S.37 of the Act and an authenticated copy of the deed, to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad for necessary action. Assai ling the said order, this writ petition has been fi led.

(2.) Sri Sadiq N. Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, whi le deciding I.A.1, a f inding having been recorded that the plaintif fs are in possession of suit property and the said f inding having been upheld in M.A.44/2006 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,), Hubli, the trial Court has committed illegality in allowing I.A.8 and in ordering the impounding of the suit document.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, by taking me through the recitals in the agreement of sale dated 21.7.1995 i.e. the suit document, submitted that the view taken by the trial Court in the matter of impounding the suit document and directing payment of duty and penalty is justif ied. He submitted that the trial court having taken note of the suit document and after examination of the recitals, has only performed its statutory duty and hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference.