M.SURYANARAYANA KALKURA Vs. NAVANEETHA LOKESH PUTHRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners being the defendants in the respondents suit in O.S.No.49/2011 inter alia for a decree of specific performance of the Agreement dated 24.01.2009, are knocking at the doors of the writ court for assailing the order dated 08.01.2019 made by the Principal Senior Civil Jude, Udupi, a copy whereof is at Annexure - A, whereby their objection as to under payment of stamp duty on and therefore, for the impounding of the said Agreement has been rejected. The sole respondent/plaintiff having entered appearance as a caveator through his counsel, opposes the Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendants vehemently contends that the registered Agreement dated 24.01.2009 contains a stipulation as to the subject property having been delivered to the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the same required the stamp duty on par with a document conveying title to immovable property by virtue of Article 5(e)(i) of Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, whereas the stamp duty admittedly having paid in a sum of Rs.200/-, the said document is not only inadmissible in evidence but also, liable to be impounded and ten times fine needs to be levied and recovered. He further submits that this aspect of the matter having not been duly considered by the Court below, the impugned order is liable to be set at naught.

(3.) Learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Sri.S.R.Hegde Hudlumane contends with equal vehemence, regardless of what is stated in the subject Agreement, there is abundant material to show that the possession was not delivered to the plaintiff pursuant to the Agreement; in the petitioners mortgage redemption suit in O.S.No.69/2011, the mortgage deed at page 4 specifically mentions about the suit property being in the possession of the petitioner's themselves; that apart, petitioners having executed registered sale deeds as per exhibits P2, P5 to P10 specifically delivered the possession of the subject property to the buyers. So arguing, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.