Sri K Ravindara Reddy vs Sri Matama Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 11230 Kant

                             1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

            REVIEW PETITION NO.361 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
SRI K. RAVINDARA REDDY
S/O A K VENKATA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.910, 3RD SECTOR,
H.S.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 103
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR .G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. MATAMA REDDY,
       S/O LATE V.C. THIPPA REDDY,
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.59/4, 21ST A MAIN,
       VANGALA HALLI, 16TH CROSS,
       1ST SECTOR, H.S.R. LAYOUT,
       BENGALURU - 560 102.

2.     SRI. R. BALARAJ,
       S/O SRIRAMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.385, 3RD CROSS,
       BEHIND PANCHAYATH OFFICE
       BELLANDUR VILLAGE & POST
       BENGALURU - 560 102

3.     SMT. B. VEENA
       W/O SRI. VASU
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.14/62, 3RD E CROSS,
       2ND MAIN, BEHIND MASJID,
                              2

     NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
     ADUGODI BENGALURU.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH MURTHY G.R & SRI. S. NISCHAL,
    ADVOCATES FOR R1;
    SRI. R.LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW / MODIFY
THE ORDER DATED 14/09/2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO. 3149/2021
ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.,

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This petition seeks review of the judgment dated

14.09.2021 on the ground that the instrument in question

namely agreement to sell does not mention anything about

the delivery of possession of the land having been given or

agreed to be given. Learned counsel appearing for the

respondents points out that the said instrument does not

say anything about the property being delivered or not

delivered and that the learned Judge of the Court below in

his accumulated wisdom having held that the property

comprised in the instrument having been delivered, the

stamp duty is payable under Article 5e(i) of schedule to

Karnataka Stamp Act 1957.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is

convinced that it has committed an apparent error in

assuming that there was a clause in the subject instrument

as to delivery of possession of subject property which is a

sine qua non for invoking the above Article. Therefore,

impugned order in review needs to be recalled and petition

has to be allowed by setting aside the order dated

14.09.2021 impugned in the writ petition.

Ordered accordingly, costs having been made easy.

Learned Judge of the Court below is requested to try &

dispose off the suit within an outer limit of seven months

and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS