Karnataka High Court
Shyam Sunder Mundada vs The District Registrar-Cum-Stamp And ... on 5 March, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1965
WP No.201019 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.201019 OF 2016 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
SHYAM SUNDER MUNDADA
S/O TULSIRAM MUNDADA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
PARTNER OF GOVIND NARYANA INDUSTRIES
RAICHUR,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, HYDERABAD ROAD,
RAICHUR-584101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR-CUM-STAMP
by SHILPA R DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TENIHALLI
DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE,
Location: High
Court Of RAICHUR-584101.
Karnataka
2. THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
RAICHUR-584101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1965
WP No.201019 of 2016
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-D DATED 19.3.2013 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.STP/46-A/2/2012-13 AND ALSO
QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-E DATED 22.9.2015
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALURU (REVENUE) IN APPEAL NO.378/2014 AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Smt. Maya T. R., learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition is filed with the
following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing impugned
order Annexure-D dated 19.3.2013 passed by
the respondent No:1 in No:STP/46-A/2/2012-
13 and also quash impugned order Annexure-
E dated 22.9.2015 passed by the Hon'ble
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Bangaluru
(Revenue) in Appeal No: 378/2014 and direct
the respondents to drop the proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1965
b) Issue any writ or order or directions as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit incircumstances of the
case, in ends of justice."
3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the present writ petition are as under:
M/s Govind Narayan and Company situated at
Raichur is a partnership firm. Initially, the partnership
firm was carrying on the business of Ginning of cotton.
Later on, the partnership firm changed its business line
and it is now running an industry. In respect of the firm,
as the time passed by, the firm has undergone several re-
constitution and new partners were inducted. In the
process, the property belonging to the father of the
petitioner by name, Tulasiram has allowed his own
property to become the property of the firm by executing
a release deed. Therefore, the District Registrar raised
issue of stamp duty and demand was made as per
Annexure - D dated 19.03.2013. The same was
challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
Bengaluru in Appeal No.378/2014. The said appeal was
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1965
contested and ultimately, the appeal came to be dismissed
by order dated 22.09.2015 and thereby, the demand
raised by the District Registrar got confirmed.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ
petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on
several grounds.
5. Re-iterating the grounds urged in the writ
petition, Sri Shivakumar Kallor, learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently contended that the learned District
Registrar failed to understand that the property that has
been brought into the assets of the partnership firm is in
the nature of settlement land and therefore, the demand
raised by the District Registrar is incorrect and the said
aspect of the matter is not properly considered by the
learned members in the KAT and sought for remitting the
matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law in
the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported
in ILR 1991 KAR 1041 in the case of Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority vs. Dr. H. Narasimhaiah Sub-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1965
Registrar & D.C. of Stamps vs Sri Buddarakkhita and
the release deed is to be considered in the light of the
principles of law enunciated in the said decision.
6. The Learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that such an argument was not canvassed before
the learned Members at KAT and therefore, for the first
time, the writ petitioner is canvassing such a position of
law and therefore, suitable orders be passed.
7. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
has perused the material on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material on record, the principles of law
enunciated by the Full Bench in the decision referred to
supra is canvassed before this Court for the first time.
8. Further, there is also no discussion by the KAT
in the absence of any of the parties with regard to the
effect of Section 14 of the Partnership Act in bringing a
property of a individual partner in to the assets of the
firm.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1965
9. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, it is just and necessary for this Court to remit the
matter to the KAT for fresh disposal in accordance with law
especially, in the light of principles of law enunciated in
the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs.
Dr. H. Narasimhaiah Sub-Registrar & D.C. of Stamps
vs Sri Buddarakkhita and in the light of Section 14 of
the partnership Act.
10. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order at Annexure - D stands quashed.
iii. The matter is remitted to the KAT for fresh
disposal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
CT:SI
