Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, H H Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji, represented by his power of attorney holder Girish, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.1963/2002. The impugned order held that two registered sale deeds, Ex.O1 dated 07.08.2018 and Ex.O2 dated 03.10.1949, were not admissible in evidence for want of stamp duty. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit seeking a possessory decree, argued that both documents were executed by the Maharaja of Mysore, a former sovereign ruler, and therefore exempt from stamp duty under Article 363 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The respondent-defendant, Amit Roy, opposed the petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the trial court's order and directing that the documents be admitted in evidence. The court held that documents executed by a sovereign ruler are exempt from stamp duty, and the trial court erred in rejecting them on that ground. The court also noted that the documents were registered, making them admissible without further proof of execution. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Stamp Duty - Exemption for Sovereign Ruler - Article 363 of the Constitution of India - Section 3 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - The court considered whether registered sale deeds executed by the Maharaja of Mysore, a former sovereign ruler, require stamp duty for admissibility. Held that such documents are exempt from stamp duty under Article 363 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, as the Maharaja is a sovereign ruler. The trial court's order rejecting the documents as inadmissible for want of stamp duty was set aside. (Paras 2-5)
B) Evidence Act - Admissibility of Documents - Sections 61, 62, 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court examined the admissibility of registered sale deeds in evidence. Held that once a document is registered, it is admissible without further proof of execution, and the question of stamp duty does not affect its admissibility if exempt. (Para 4)
C) Power of Attorney - Authority to Represent - Order III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court noted that the petitioner was represented by a power of attorney holder, which is permissible under the CPC. The substitution of the power of attorney holder was duly recorded. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether registered sale deeds executed by the Maharaja of Mysore are exempt from stamp duty and therefore admissible in evidence despite not bearing stamp duty?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.1963/2002 is set aside. The documents Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 are held to be admissible in evidence and shall be marked accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Stamp duty exemption for documents executed by sovereign rulers
- Article 363 of the Constitution of India
- Section 3 of the Karnataka Stamp Act
- 1957
- admissibility of registered sale deeds
- power of attorney holder's authority
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (07) 41
Writ Petition No. 35358 of 2017 (GM-CPC)
Sri. C Gowrishankar (for petitioner), Sri. Pradeep Singh (for respondent)
H H Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order of the trial court rejecting documents as inadmissible for want of stamp duty.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the trial court's order dated 21.07.2017 and a direction to admit the documents (Ex.O1 and Ex.O2) in evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court held that two registered sale deeds were not admissible in evidence for want of stamp duty, which the petitioner argued was erroneous as the documents were executed by a sovereign ruler and exempt from stamp duty.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru) passed an order on 21.07.2017 holding Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 as 'not admissible in evidence'.
Issues
Whether registered sale deeds executed by the Maharaja of Mysore are exempt from stamp duty under Article 363 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957?
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the documents as inadmissible for want of stamp duty?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 are registered sale deeds executed by the Maharaja of Mysore, a sovereign ruler, and therefore exempt from stamp duty; the trial court was not justified in holding them inadmissible.
Respondent resisted the petition, but no specific arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
Documents executed by a sovereign ruler, such as the Maharaja of Mysore, are exempt from stamp duty under Article 363 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Therefore, registered sale deeds executed by such a ruler cannot be rejected as inadmissible for want of stamp duty.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No.1963/2002 for a possessory decree is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 21.07.2017 made by the learned XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J whereby the subject documents in Ex-O1 & EX-O2 are held to be ‘not admissible in evidence’.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Ex.O1 is dated 07.08.2018 and Ex.O2 is dated 03.10.1949; both are registered Sale Deeds to which the Maharaja of Mysore is a party; consequently the question of payment of Stamp Duty would not arise and therefore the Court below is not justified in holding them to be inadmissible in evidence for want of Stamp Duty.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed O.S.No.1963/2002 before the XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, seeking a possessory decree. During trial, the petitioner sought to mark two registered sale deeds (Ex.O1 and Ex.O2) as evidence. The trial court, by order dated 21.07.2017, held that these documents were not admissible for want of stamp duty. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 35358 of 2017 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment, pronouncing it on 03.07.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 363
- Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957: Section 3
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order III Rule 1
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 61, 62, 63
