Karnataka High Court
Shri. Subhash Bhimagouda Patil vs Shri. Dundappa Shankar Chougala on 13 January, 2021
Author: Ashok S. Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
W.P. NO.108138/2017(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SUBHASH BHIMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMATNUR-591340,
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI.NINGOUDA BHIMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMATNUR-591340,
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI.LAXMAN BALAPPA KAMATE
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SADALAGA-591239,
TALUK: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.: SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
1. SHRI. DUNDAPPA SHANKAR CHOUGALA
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE and SERVICE,
R/O: KAMATNUR-591340,
2
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI.GANESH CHINTAMANI JOSHI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMMANAGI-591268,
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI.SANTOSH CHINTAMANI JOSHI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMMANAGI-591268,
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. : B S KAMATE, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLLI, ADV. FOR
SRI. R.M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R3,
R2-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT
OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY
EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT GOKAK IN T.P. APPEAL
NO.15/2008-09 DATED 16.01.2011 WHICH IS PRODUCED
UNDER ANNEXURE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated
29.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sankeshwar in O.S. No.57/2009 filed this
writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners
is that the respondent No.1 has filed a suit against
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and petitioners in
O.S.No.57/2009 for specific performance of contract in
respect of land R.S. No.21/1, measuring 2 Acres 5
guntas situated at Kamatnur village, Tal : Hukkeri,
Dist: Belgaum. Respondent No.1 contended that he
had entered into agreement of sale with respondent
Nos.2 and 3 to purchase the said land for
consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and respondent Nos.2
and 3 have received an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- as
earnest money and executed the sale agreement
dated 25.10.2007 in favour of respondent No.1.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not perform their part of
contract. Hence, respondent No.1 is force to file a suit
in O.S. No.57/2009 against respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed a
written statement admitting the averments made in
the plaint. The petitioners were impleaded as
defendants No.3 to 5. The petitioners did not file
written statement, thereafter the trial Court decreed
the suit of respondent No.1 by its judgment and
decreed dated 15.12.2011. The petitioners aggrieved
by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court
filed appeal in R.A. No.11/2012, which came to be
allowed by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment
and decree dated 29.09.2013 and the matter was
remitted to the trial Court.
4. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.11/2012
preferred MSA No.502/2013 before this Court. This
Court vide its judgment dated 16.03.2017 allowed the
appeal in part and remitted the matter to the trial
Court to re-hear the arguments from both the sides
and to consider the admissibility of Ex.P1 and P2 in
accordance with law.
5. After remanding the matter, the trial Court
passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to
pay the duty and penalty on Ex.P1 and P2. The
petitioners aggrieved by the said order filed this writ
petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the First Appellate Court has committed
an error in determining the stamp duty. He further
submits that as per Section 2(1) (mm) of the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 as defined in Section
2(1)(mm), the market value is taken into
consideration i.e., the rate fixed by means the price
which such property would have fetched if sold in
open market on the date of execution of such
instrument or the consideration stated in instrument
whichever is higher. The document was required to be
written on the stamp paper based on the actual
market value of the property on the date of its
execution. The trial Court has committed an error in
determining the stamp duty and prays to allow the
writ petition.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents supports the impugned order stating that
the market value of the property is fixed at
Rs.3,00,000/- and the First Appellate Court was
justified in determining the stamp duty at Rs.22,500/-
and the trial Court does not committed any error and
hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Perused the records and considered the
submission of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
10. It is not in dispute that the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 executed Ex.P1 and P2 in favour of
respondent No.1. The said documents were marked
as Ex.P1 and P2. Thereafter, suit came to be decreed.
Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the judgment
and decree passed by the First Appellate Court has
preferred the miscellaneous second appeal challenging
the order of remand. This Court vide order dated
16.03.2017 allowed the appeal in part and remitted
the matter to the trial Court to hear the argument and
to consider admissibility of Ex.P1 and P2 in accordance
with law.
11. In pursuance of the order passed by this
Court in MSA No.502/2013 the trial Court has taken
into consideration the amount shown in Ex.P1 as
market value and determined the market value of the
suit land as Rs.3,00,000/- and also determined the
duty as Rs.22,300/- and held that the stamp duty
payable on the said instrument is Rs.22,300/- i.e., 7½
of the market value fixing the market value at
Rs.22,500/- and penalty.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
fairly admitted that the petitioners have purchased the
suit property for consideration of Rs.43,000/- and
Rs.38,000/- under two different registered sale deed.
13. The market value shown in the instrument
is higher than the market value shown in the
registered sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioners. Hence, the trial Court was justified in
fixing the market value stamp duty by considering the
market value of the suit schedule property at
Rs.3,00,000/- which is mentioned in Ex.P1 and P2
which is on the higher side. Thus, I do not find any
grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MNS/
