Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging an order dated 25.11.2019 that directed them to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, based on a District Registrar's order. The dispute centered on an Agreement to Sell dated 05.02.1997 for immovable property. The petitioners argued that possession was delivered prior to the agreement, making Article 5(e)(i) inapplicable, as supported by their amended plaint and coordinate bench judgments. The respondents contended the provision applied due to possession being handed over. The Court analyzed Article 5(e)(i) and (ii), finding that the statute only covers possession delivered/agreed before conveyance or possession not delivered. Since the petitioners' plaint indicated prior possession, the Court held the Impugned Order erroneous, quashed it, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, quashed an order directing payment of stamp duty and penalty under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 -- The petitioners challenged an order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chickmagaluru, in O.S.No.34/2017, which arose from a District Registrar's order dated 04.10.2019 -- The Court held that Article 5(e)(i) applies only when possession is delivered or agreed to be delivered before executing the conveyance as part of the agreement -- Since the petitioners claimed possession was delivered prior to the Agreement to Sell dated 05.02.1997, as per the amended plaint, the provision was inapplicable -- The Court relied on coordinate bench judgments and a plain reading of the statute, emphasizing that the statute provides only two options: possession delivered/agreed before conveyance or possession not delivered -- The Impugned Order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether stamp duty under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was applicable to an Agreement to Sell where possession was allegedly delivered prior to the agreement
Final Decision
The Court quashed the Impugned Order dated 25.11.2019 and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law
Law Points
- Interpretation of Article 5(e)(i) and (ii) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act
- 1957
- Distinction between possession delivered before agreement and possession not delivered
- Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- 1950
- Principles of stamp duty assessment on agreements to sell immovable property
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 21
WP No. 2200 of 2020 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Yashwanth Nethaji for Sri. K. V. Narasimhan (for petitioners), Sri. N. Shankar Narayana Bhat (for respondents 9 to 12)
Smt. Tulasamma W/o Late B Govindaraju, Sri. G. Ravikumar, Sri. G. Ramesha, Sri. G. Shankar Kumar, Sri. G. Gopinath
Smt. M. S. Seethalakshmi, Sri. M. S. Prasanna, Sri. M. S. Sathyanarayana, Sri. M. S. Ramakrishna, Sri. M. S. Dasharatha, Smt. M. S. Shanthakumari, Smt. K. L. Sathyabhama, Sri. M. S. Jaiprakash, Smt. Prema, Smt. Bhagyalakshmi, Smt. Parvathi, Sri. Vimal Kumar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging a civil court order on stamp duty assessment
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chickmagaluru, in O.S.No.34/2017
Filing Reason
The order directed payment of Rs.25,900/- as deficit stamp duty and penalty under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, based on a District Registrar's order
Previous Decisions
District Registrar, Chickmagaluru District, order dated 04.10.2019 concluded stamp duty payable under Article 5(e)(i); I Additional Senior Civil Judge upheld this in order dated 25.11.2019
Issues
Whether stamp duty under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was applicable to the Agreement to Sell dated 05.02.1997, given the claim of possession delivered prior to the agreement
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued possession was delivered prior to the Agreement to Sell, making Article 5(e)(i) inapplicable, as per Clause 3 of the agreement and amended plaint
Respondents contended Article 5(e)(i) applied because possession was handed over
Ratio Decidendi
Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 applies only when possession is delivered or agreed to be delivered before executing the conveyance as part of the agreement; if possession was delivered prior to the agreement, this provision does not apply, and the statute provides only two scenarios: possession delivered/agreed before conveyance or possession not delivered
Judgment Excerpts
A plain reading of the statute only provides for two options. That the (i) possession of the property in issue is delivered/agreed to be delivered before executing the conveyance or (ii) that the possession of the property is not delivered
The plaintiffs, although acknowledge the original ownership of the processors-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 7, also sets out that during the life time of the vendor - M.S. Sudarshan, the petitioners and their family members were in possession of the entire property and that the possession continues even today
Procedural History
Agreement to Sell executed on 05.02.1997 -- District Registrar order dated 04.10.2019 on stamp duty -- I Additional Senior Civil Judge order dated 25.11.2019 upholding it -- Writ petition filed on 2020-01-22 challenging the order
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227
- Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957: Article 5(e)(i), Article 5(e)(ii)
