C K RAVI PRASANNA Vs. T K GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 7-3-2007 in O. S. No. 91/2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Sullia, directing the petitioner to pay duty and penalty on the agreement of sale dated 27-11-2004.

(2.) PETITIONER filed O. S. No. 91/2005 against the respondent for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The petitioner in his plaint relied on an agreement of sale dated 27-11-2004 said to have been executed by the respondent. The respondent entered appearance before the Trial Court, filed written statement denying the agreement of sale and opposed the claim of petitioner. After completion of the pleadings and framing of issues, the petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1. In the evidence of P. W. 1 he wanted to mark the agreement of sale dated 27-11 -2004. The Counsel for respondent raised objection for marking the agreement of sale on the ground that the same is insufficiently stampted and that the same is not registered. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order holding that the agreement dated 27-11-2004 requires compulsory registration under Section 17 (1)-A of the registration Act. It is further held that the agreement is not duly stampted and the same cannot be admitted in evidence unless duty and penalty is paid. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) SRI Ashok Haranahalli, Learned Counsel for petitioner contends, that the petitioner was in possession of the schedule property even prior to the agreement of sale dated 27-11 -2004 and there was no delivery of possession of the schedule property to the petitioner. He contends that in the absence of delivery of possession under the agreement of sale the question of paying duty and penalty will not arise. He further contends, that the unregistered and unstampted agreement can be marked in evidence for collateral of showing the nature of possession of the schedule property. He further contends, that in O. S. No. 91/2005 the petitioner is not seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27-11 -2004. On the other hand the prayer of the petitioner is for decree of permanent injunction. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. 1. SRI K. AMARNA TH vs SMT. PUTTAMMA 2. SRI K. ANJANEYA SETTY vs SRI K. H. RANGAIAH SETTY. 3. SRI BONDAR SINGH AND OTHERS vs NIHAL singh AND OTHERS.