P.T. ANAND ADVOCATE Vs. D.M. ESHWARAPPA S/O DIVATE MALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No. 23/2010, being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court on 20/9/2011 (Annexure 'E').

(2.) THE respondents - plaintiff have filed the suit for specific performance. In the said suit, the petitioner as the defendant has raised objection with regard to the stamp duty being insufficient on the document i.e., the agreement to sell The said objection was raised by a memo to which the respondents - plaintiff filed objections interalia, staling that the documents does not require any registration and therefore, objection regarding the stamp duty and also the valuation as per Sub -Registrar's office with regard to the suit schedule property, would not arise. The trial Court has over -ruled the objection regarding stamp duty by the order dated 20/9/2011. The same is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, I find that the respondents - plaintiff nave filed the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 4/3/1996. It is an admitted fact that possession under the said agreement has not been handed over by the petitioner to the respondents herein. Therefore, the said document does not calf for any registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Such being the position, the objection raised by the petitioner under Sections 33, 34 and 35 r/w Section 20 of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 and also seeking a direction to impound the agreement under Section 37(2) of the said Act was wholly incorrect. The trial Court has rightly over -ruled the said objection.