Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.29/2011 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 7.10.2009. The agreement was entered into between the plaintiff (who was a tenant in possession of the property) and the defendant (owner). The trial court, by order dated 18.6.2014, refused to mark the agreement of sale on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court observed that the trial court ought to have impounded the document and sent it to the Collector for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, instead of refusing to mark it. The court held that the question of sufficiency of stamp duty and penalty is a matter to be decided at the final hearing of the suit, not at the stage of marking the document. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, including the impounding of the document and sending it to the Collector for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Stamp Act - Admissibility of Document - Section 33 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - The trial court refused to mark an agreement of sale in a suit for specific performance on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. The High Court held that the court must first impound the document and send it to the Collector for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty, and cannot reject the document at the stage of marking. The court further held that the question of sufficiency of stamp duty and penalty is to be decided at the final hearing of the suit, not at the preliminary stage. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to mark the agreement of sale dated 7.10.2009 on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped, without first impounding the document and sending it to the Collector for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.6.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, in O.S.No.29/2011 is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, including impounding the document and sending it to the Collector for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty.
Law Points
- Document insufficiently stamped cannot be rejected at marking stage
- court must impound and send to Collector for adjudication under Section 33 of Karnataka Stamp Act
- 1957
- Suit for specific performance
- Agreement of sale
- Possession as tenant
- Stamp duty and penalty
- Adjudication at final hearing
