G. RAMARATHNAM Vs. JAYAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner -defendant No. 1 and also the arguments of the learned Counsel for respondents -plaintiffs.

(2.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to set aside the order dated 19.12.2015 passed by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH 14) in S.C. No. 1056/2014.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner herein during the course of arguments submitted that there was original lease agreement between Muniyappa and defendant No. 1 which was a registered sale agreement which is also not disputed by the other side. He submitted that the said document was produced by the plaintiffs themselves and got it marked. It is also his contention that in respect of the said lease is concerned, shara was entered into on the said document wherein Muniyappa extended the period of lease by receiving a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs from defendant No. 1 and the said shara is signed by the lessor as well as the lessee and also the witnesses therein. When the said shara was going to be marked during the course of trial, the plaintiffs raised objections for marking the said shara on the ground that under the Karnataka Stamp Act, after paying the proper stamp duty only, the said shara can be considered by the Court. He also submitted that so far as the shara is concerned, it is only for the extension of the original lease period, which was under a registered lease agreement. It was also submitted that so far as the amount of Rs. 22 lakhs which is paid by defendant No. 1 to Muniyappa is concerned, it was by way of security deposit which is going to be refunded after the expiry of the lease period and therefore, it will not attract the payment of stamp duty. The trial Court without examining this legal aspect has come to the conclusion that the shara which gives the right in respect of the immoveable property regarding extension of the lease period, creates an interest in the property as per Sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and has wrongly held that the stamp duty is to be paid. Accordingly, it passed the impugned order directing defendant No. 1 to pay the deficit stamp duty at Rs. 18,36,000/ -.