Madireddy Vs. Chowdareddy and Others

Madireddy vs Chowdareddy and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Mar 23, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1192651

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1192651
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: H.G. Ramesh
Decided On: Mar 23, 2017
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 56179 of 2013 (GM-CPC)
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Section 34 - Comparative Citations: 2017 (3) KantLJ 387, 2017 (2) KCCR 1743,

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madireddy

Respondent

Chowdareddy and Others

Excerpt

karnataka stamp act, 1957 - section 34 - comparative citations: 2017 (3) kantlj 387, 2017 (2) kccr 1743, .....dated 10-4-2006 as per section 34 of the karnataka stamp act, 1957. 3. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that defendants nos. 1 and 3 did not tender the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 10-4-2006 to be admitted in evidence, and hence, the direction given to them by the trial court to pay the stamp duty and penalty is not warranted in law. the submission is rightly not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1-plaintiff. 4. in my opinion, direction to pay the stamp duty and penalty as contemplated under section 34 of the karnataka stamp act, 1957 ('the act' for short) could be given only to the person who wants to tender an insufficiently stamped document to be admitted in evidence and if he is entitled to recover the duty and penalty so paid by him from any other person as per section 43 of the act, he may recover the same from the other person as provided in the said section. in the present case, as defendants nos. 1 and 3 did not tender the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 10.4.2006 to be admitted in evidence, the trial court's direction to them to pay the duty and penalty on the said document is unsustainable in law. 5. as the trial court has not examined the matter in the light of the relevant provisions of the act, the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. the matter is remitted to the trial court for reconsideration in accordance with law. all contentions of both the parties are kept open. petition disposed of.

Full Judgment

H.G. Ramesh, J. (Oral)

1. Who could be directed to pay the stamp duty and penalty under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957? This is the short question that calls for an answer in this case.

2. This writ petition is by defendant No. 3 and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Trial Court in the suit in O.S. No. 8 of 2010. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has directed defendants 1 and 3 to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the agreement of sale dated 10-4-2006 as per Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that defendants Nos. 1 and 3 did not tender the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 10-4-2006 to be admitted in evidence, and hence, the direction given to them by the Trial Court to pay the stamp duty and penalty is not warranted in law. The submission is rightly not disputed by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff.

4. In my opinion, direction to pay the stamp duty and penalty as contemplated under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) could be given only to the person who wants to tender an insufficiently stamped document to be admitted in evidence and if he is entitled to recover the duty and penalty so paid by him from any other person as per Section 43 of the Act, he may recover the same from the other person as provided in the said section. In the present case, as defendants Nos. 1 and 3 did not tender the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 10.4.2006 to be admitted in evidence, the Trial Court's direction to them to pay the duty and penalty on the said document is unsustainable in law.

5. As the Trial Court has not examined the matter in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act, the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.

Petition disposed of.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2017 Same Parties Madireddy vs Chowdareddy and Others Same Subject Education Same Judge H.G. Ramesh

Education