MADIREDDY Vs. CHOWDAREDDY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Who could be directed to pay the stamp duty and penalty under Sec. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957? This is the short question that calls for an answer in this case.

(2.) This writ petition is by defendant No. 3 and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Trial Court in the suit in O.S. No. 8 of 2010. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has directed defendants 1 and 3 to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the agreement of sale dated 10-4-2006 as per Sec. 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that defendants Nos. 1 and 3 did not tender the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 10-4-2006 to be admitted in evidence, and hence, the direction given to them by the Trial Court to pay the stamp duty and penalty is not warranted in law. The submission is rightly not disputed by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff.