Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.1963/2002 seeking a possessory decree, challenged the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, which held that the subject documents (Ex-O1 and Ex-O2) were not admissible in evidence for want of stamp duty. The documents were registered sale deeds dated 07.08.2018 and 03.10.1949, to which the Maharaja of Mysore was a party. The petitioner argued that since the Maharaja of Mysore was a party, the question of payment of stamp duty did not arise, and the court below was not justified in holding them inadmissible. The High Court, relying on Article 294 of the Constitution of India, which exempts property of the Union or State from taxes imposed by the State, held that the documents were exempt from stamp duty. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to mark the documents as exhibits in the suit. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Stamp Duty - Admissibility of Documents - Exemption under Article 294 of Constitution of India - Registered Sale Deeds executed by Maharaja of Mysore are exempt from stamp duty under Article 294 of the Constitution of India, which provides that property of the Union or State is exempt from all taxes imposed by the State. Consequently, such documents cannot be held inadmissible for want of stamp duty under Sections 34 and 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. (Paras 2-4)
B) Civil Procedure - Evidence - Marking of Documents - The trial court erred in holding that registered sale deeds executed by the Maharaja of Mysore were not admissible in evidence due to non-payment of stamp duty. The High Court set aside the order and directed that the documents be marked as exhibits in the suit. (Paras 1-5)
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 being stamped.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. The trial court is directed to mark the documents Ex-O1 and Ex-O2 as exhibits in the suit.
Law Points
- Stamp Duty
- Admissibility of Documents
- Registered Sale Deeds
- Exemption under Article 294 of Constitution of India
- Karnataka Stamp Act
- 1957
- Sections 34 and 35
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (07) 54
Writ Petition No. 35358 of 2017 (GM-CPC)
C. Gowrishankar (for petitioner), 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 holding documents inadmissible for want of stamp duty.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 21.07.2017 and a direction to mark the documents as exhibits.
Filing Reason
The trial court held that the subject documents (Ex-O1 and Ex-O2) were not admissible in evidence for want of stamp duty.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed the impugned order on 21.07.2017.
Issues
Whether registered sale deeds executed by the Maharaja of Mysore are exempt from stamp duty under Article 294 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the trial court erred in holding such documents inadmissible for want of stamp duty.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the documents are registered sale deeds to which the Maharaja of Mysore is a party, and therefore no stamp duty is payable.
Respondent resisted the petition, but no specific arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
Registered sale deeds executed by the Maharaja of Mysore are exempt from stamp duty under Article 294 of the Constitution of India, which provides that property of the Union or State is exempt from all taxes imposed by the State. Therefore, such documents cannot be held inadmissible for want of stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
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 the 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 the documents were not admissible for want of stamp duty. The petitioner challenged this order by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 294
- Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957: Sections 34, 35
