AHMED BAWA Vs. M.S. LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's writ petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the defendant and impounding the document i.e., agreement of sale, which is insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the 'agreement of sale'. Defendant is contesting the matter. Issues are framed. When the case is posted for plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The plaintiff is tendering the suit agreement. It is yet to be marked. At that stage, the defendant filed an application bringing to the notice of the Court that the 'agreement of sale' is not duly stamped. The plaintiff filed his objections. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court has held that the instrument is not duly stamped and hence the plaintiff is liable to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 19,800/- and ten times penalty on the said amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends that the stage for impounding the document is not reached. Therefore, the Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. Consequently, she contends that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of K. Govinde Gowda v. Smt. Akkayamma and Others, 2012 4 KarLJ 240 passed in W.P. No. 8892 of 2010 (GM-CPC), imposition of penalty of ten times the duty is not mandatory. The Trial Court declined to follow the said judgment on the ground that it is not a reported judgment. I do not see any merit in both the contentions. No doubt merely because the plaintiff produces a document before the Court, the Court does not get jurisdiction to go into the question whether the said document is sufficiently stamped or not. But once the plaintiff tenders the said document in evidence, an obligation is cast on the Court to look into the stamp duty paid and if it is insufficiently stamped, to impound the document and impose penalty of ten times the duty. The plaintiff has filed his examination in Chief. A reading of the examination-in-chief shows that he is relying on the suit agreement. The suit is still at the stage of marking the suit document. Therefore, the contention that the stage for impounding the document is not reached, is incorrect. The aforesaid judgment on which reliance is placed is a reported judgment. But the said judgment is overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Digambar Warty and Others v. District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore and Another, 2013 4 KarLJ 247. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit as in both the context, document is insufficiently stamped. The calculation made by the Trial Court is correct and do not call for interference. Petition is dismissed.