Y C SUSHEELA DEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner constituted a partnership firm under a deed dated 27-8-1981. The firm purchased Site Nos. 65, 66, 67 and 68 in Prakash Nagar, Bangalore and put-up a commercial complex known as Eswari Complex. The partnership underwent reconstitution and finally dissolved with effect from 1-4-1992. Since there were differences among the partners of erstwhile partnership firm in the matter of division of assets and liabilities, under Annexure-B dated 25-5-1989 the partners decided to refer the matter to Arbitrator and an agreement to that effect was also entered into as per Annexure-C dated 2-11-1992. As there was no mutual co-operation amongst the partners, Arbitration Case No. 14/1993 was filed on the file of Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. By an order dated 20-4-1993 the Civil Court referred the matter to sole Arbitrator with a direction to submit an Award within four months. Accordingly, the Arbitrator conducted arbitration proceedings after affording an opportunity to the partners and passed an Award proposing division of all the assets and liabilities of Eswari Complex. The Civil Court accepted the same and passed a decree as per Annexure-C. the same was sent to the Sub-Registrar for registration under S. 88 (d) of the Indian Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar opined that the document is an instrument of Partition Deed and referred to the higher authorities for determination. The first respondent Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 28-12-1994 holding that the document is a partition deed under Article 39 (c) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and ordered to pay the deficit stamp duty on the instrument presented for its Registration. Based on the said order, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-G dated 4-3-1995 calling upon the petitioner to pay the difference stamp duty amount of Rs. 1,86,650-00 and equal amount of penalty, in all Rs. 3,73,300-00. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Annexures-F and G and for issuing a direction to the 3rd respondent to return the document after completing all the formalities.

(2.) IN the counter filed on behalf of the respondents the impugned action is sought to be justified. It is contended that the document in question falls under S. 2 (1) (k) of the Act and hence it is a Parition deed. Justifying the payment of deficit stamp duty amount and levy of penalty, respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points arise for consideration:-