LexSEETHARAMA SHETTY versus MONAPPA SHETTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 166 : 2024 INSC 650 Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty (Civil Appeal Nos. 10039-40 of 2024) 02 September 2024 [Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Scope of Sections 33, 34, 37, 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957; whether the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999, with a recital on delivery of possession to the appellant, conforms to the definition of conveyance under Section 2(d) read with Article 20(1) of the Schedule of the Act or not; whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the penalty determined by the trial Court on the instrument instead of sending the instrument to the District Registrar for determination and collection of penalty as may be applicable is legal; whether, the said order of trial court as confirmed by the impugned orders of the High Court are legal and valid or call for interference by this Court. Headnotes† Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – ss.33, 34, 39 – Appellant sought perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession of the plaint schedule property which he claimed was given to him as part performance under the suit agreement between them – Respondent denying the execution of the aforesaid agreement of sale inter alia claimed that the document was insufficiently stamped and thus, inadmissible in evidence – Filed application u/s.33 for impounding of the suit agreement – Eventually, trial court directed the appellant to pay the deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty on the agreement of sale – Penalty determined by the Court on the instrument instead of sending the instrument to the District Registrar for determination and collection of penalty, if legal: Held: No – Before the stage of admission of the instrument in evidence, the respondent raised an objection on the deficit stamp duty – Therefore, it was the respondent who required the suit agreement to be impounded and then sent to the District Registrar to be dealt with u/s.39 – Respondent desired the impounding of the * Author [2024] 9 S.C.R. 167 Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty suit agreement and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty – The trial court is yet to exercise its jurisdiction u/s.34 – On the contrary, the trial court called for a report from the District Registrar, so for all purposes, the suit instrument is still at one or the other steps summed up in paragraph 21 of the present judgment – Therefore, going by the request of the respondent, the option is left for the decision of the District Registrar – Contrary to these admitted circumstances, though the suit instrument is insufficiently stamped, still the penalty of ten times u/s.34 was imposed through the impugned orders – The imposition of penalty of ten times at this juncture in the facts and circumstances of this case is illegal and contrary to the steps summed up in paragraph 21 – The instrument is sent to the District Registrar, thereafter the District Registrar in exercise of his jurisdiction u/s.39, decides the quantum of stamp duty and penalty payable on the instrument – The appellant is denied this option by the impugned orders – Appellant must pay what is due, but as is decided by the District Registrar and not the Court u/s.34 – The direction to pay ten times the penalty of the deficit stamp duty set aside. [Paras 22, 23] Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – ss.33-35, 37, 39 – Scope – Insufficiently stamped instrument – Admission procedure – Steps explained and summed up. [Paras 21-21.8] Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – s.2(d), Article 5, Article 20(1) of the Schedule of the Act – ‘conveyance’: Held: Article 5 of the Schedule of the Act deals with an agreement of sale coupled with possession and the requirement of paying the ad valorem stamp duty – If an instrument conforms to the requirements of conveyance u/s.2(d) r/w Article 20(1) of the Schedule of the Act, the applicable stamp duty is ad valorem – In the present case, the appellant did not argue on the applicability of the clause dealing with possession in the agreement and requirement to pay ad valorem stamp duty and the relief of injunction was sought on the basis of delivery of possession by the respondent under the suit agreement. [Para 14] Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Object of the Act – Discussed. [Para 17] Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – ss.34, 39 – Distinction and discretion under – Distinction in the discretion available to Every Person/Court; discretionary ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.