TULASAMMA Vs. M. S. SEETHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition seeks to challenge an order dtd. 25/11/2019 in O.S.No.34/2017, passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Chickmagaluru, [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"].By the Impugned Order, the petitioners/plaintiffs have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,900.00 as deficit stamp duty and penalty of ten times. The Impugned Order arises out of an order dtd. 4/10/2019 passed by the District Registrar, Chickmagaluru District, to whom the matter had been referred by the learned Trial Court. The Registrar had reached a conclusion that the stamp duty was payable under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that it is an undisputed fact that the possession of the suit schedule property was not delivered to them under the terms of the Agreement to Sell. Thus, it is contended that Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, would not be applicable. Learned counsel seeks to rely upon Clause 3 of the Agreement to Sell dtd. 5/2/1997 to show that possession was delivered previous to signing the Agreement to Sell as well as their amended plaint, as explained in paragraph 3 of the plaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the provision of Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to Karnataka Stamp Act, would be applicable, because the possession was already handed over.