KASTURI AND ORS. Vs. MAILAREPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in OS No. 271/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubli have filed IA No. V u/ss. 34, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act read with Registration Act seeking the indulgence of the court to refer an un -registered deed of receipt dated 30.03.1995 executed between the present plaintiff No. 1 and late Yamanappa Shivarayappanavar i.e., husband of defendant No. 1 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad to determine and collect the proper stamp duty, registration charges and penalty if any on the said document.

(2.) IT appears, the plaintiffs have filed objections to the said application stating that without prejudice to their rights, the defendants are bound to pay the stamp duty on the alleged document and they have in fact virtually supported the defendants prayer and they have argued that the court has to pass appropriate order with regard to fixing of the stamp duty and penalty at the rate of 10 times and the same is ordered to be paid on the 50% of the prevalent market value of the property. As the documents relied pertains to a valuable property, the same has to be paid to the Government exchequer as compensation.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners herein strenuously contends before the court that the trial Court has not specifically gone through the nature of the document in question and not meticulously examined and understood the same in proper perspective before ordering such amount as duty penalty. If the document is read in proper perspective, it only says that it is only a family arrangement between the parties and one of the parties has released his share in favour of another. Therefore, it only attract Section 45 of the Registration Act and not under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Secondly, he contended before the court that the petitioners have prayed for referring the document to the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the document and then to fix duty penalty and then the defendant is ready and willing to pay duty, penalty as may be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. He further contends before this Court that though there are some admissions in the affidavit filed in support of the application, but in fact the court has not considered the document in proper perspective. Therefore, the order impugned in the petition is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside.