Shri V. Prakash vs Shri Venkataramanaiah, Shri Gangarangaiah and Shri Srinivasa

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The petitioner who is plaintiff in O.S. No. 597/2006 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Magadi is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the court below impounding the document and calling upon the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the duty and penalty as contemplated u/s 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act (for short ''the Act''). The petitioner has filed the suit to recovery part of sale consideration paid by him to the respondent and an agreement of sale dated 13.9.2004 wherein he had agreed to purchase the property involved therein for a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- and paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance sale consideration. He agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,84,000/- within 5 months from the date of the agreement. The document discloses that possession of the property has been delivered to the petitioner - plaintiff. The document is drawn on Rs. 100/- stamp paper. When the suit was filed for recovery of advance sale consideration, the trial Court has called upon the petitioner to pay the stamp duty. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that document can be impounded u/s 33 of the Act when the party produces the same at the time of marking and therefore he contends that the order passed by the court below even before the document is sought to be tendered in evidence, is illegal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the if the document is not tendered by a party requesting the Court to mark the same as a exhibit, the trial Court would not get the jurisdiction to impound the same as decided by this Court in the case of Shri S. Suresh Vs. Shri L. Pothe Gowda and Others, . But the fact remains that even if the said document is not sought to be marked in the evidence as per Section 33 of the Act, the Court has powers to send the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for impounding and adjudicate the duty and penalty payable as decided by this Court in the case of Dr. S. Vidhya Vs. Sri R.S. Venakata Reddy, .

In view of the judgment of this Court in Dr. S. Vidya''s case referred to supra, the Writ Petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.