Karnataka High CourtSri K Sunnoji Rao vs Sri M Thimmaiah on 14 October, 2008Author:A.S.BopannaBench:A.S.BopannaIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANG }0§$%.

DATED THIS THE 14*" may OF OC?Q$ER $Q0$»LWuK

BEFOREi
THE HON'BLE M. JUs$:cE*.A S 3c2aNﬁA}

w.P.No.s146/25ej;3a~¢Pe) ' V}

..------a...-------.----

SRI K SUNNOJI_RAO 9 _*g;_ ,
s/0 LATE KR15HN§:RAO. %*" '"_'-'~w~
ASED ABOUT,54 E351' g_*.. 5 4' .
R/AT No.1 KAMEARA STREET «_;
RAMANAGARAM.T@WNn 3°V"'*._V ;
BANGALORE"Rﬂ£AL EESTRICT. "W
1. _ "v.,jv%'aV*. - ... PETITIONER

{By sri K_R_sR£NivAs§Ng Abv.,)

".-nu-.----&,~_

 <i= T'sRr MfTHiaMAIAH

'*_s/afLArE§MuDnANARAsAppA
A, AG£_ﬁRJ9R
'WR/AT 50.69 V BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR BANGLORE

'  @3AA *SRI L vnsu RAG

"»_S/O LAGOJI RAG

AGE MAJOR

CHICKEN MERCHANT
CAMERA STREET ARCOT
NORTH ARCOT DIST
TAMILNADU

3 SRI PRAKASH
S/O LATE PUTTANNACHAR

i

6'.

 



AGE MAJOR

R/AT RAMPURA VILLAGE'.
KUPPA HOBLI

MADDUR TQ MANDYA DIST

(By Sri K R RAMESH. ADv.. Foe R1;~'
R«2 & 3 ARE saRvEn)_._ Va »

THIS w.9. IS FILED' PRAYING' To- QUASH THE
ORDER DT. 12.2.2007 VIDE ANNEx,H. Passes BY THE
TRIAL COURT IN o.s;No.104X02 on THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE ﬁSR;DN;}, RAMANAGARAM,
BANGALORE RURAL D1sTRIGT.H.Fr t*Tz"'

THIS pawxrxon édﬁimé QN FOR pair. HEARING IN
'E' GROUP Te:sfpAY,'THEjCoURr MADE THE FOLLGING:

 

 QQQQ      

The  before this Court

assailing"t5e'erdért&ated 12.2.2007 passed in

v-tg,sg§o;1o4/2002; """ " which is impugned at

   i:<v>:.1.~the petition .

 first respondent herein, who isgvaﬂtlaintiff in 0.S.NO.l04/2002, has-ATA'.-iunetittuted the suit in question for specific

"--«:'Vj5e5j:'formance of the agreement dated 4.3.1996.

'In pursuance to the case put forth by the

 

plaintiff, the plaintiff sought to mark the

E3. It is contended on behalf of the

petitioner that 'Article 5(e){i) of latheKarnataka Stamp Actprovides that" ;e§ég:=_

possession is delivered or is «char

delivered, the stamp duty payable 'is;eﬂasr

contemplated therein conslderind the same asua
conveyance and since in the instant case, the
plaintiff contends fthat .thel suit schedule

property as iﬁ ﬁle possession; the stam duty
should be paid eccordlnglyeﬁ It is, therefore,
contended 'that hthe "trial Court has not

properly considered this aspect of the matter

a. and as such is not sustainable.'=A "~4;F The learned counsel for respondent

'1No,1l*heue§erg sought to sustain the order

passed bﬁ the trial Court by contending that,

xVv_ the ﬁery perusal of the document and the

l« treading of the covenant therein would indicate

R" {that the possession of the property has not

:'been handed over uE%er the said document. In



fact, in the present case, therex #as" an"earlier understanding in the year l99§vdurin§?dig

which period itself the plaintiiﬁ had seen ouéﬁ

in possession of the suit? pro§¢:ty~h§nd*

thereafter was in the 'enjoyment? of 'the
plaintiff. Subsequently} the second agreement
was entered into indicstin§_osﬁ¢ents received
and the oblidetionrtoiﬁonrey the property to
the plaintiifg" the seid document itself would
indicate thet the rossession was handed over
much "ea:11§g fie lined said document and

therefore} the}trié§ Court was justified in

=-o¢om1hg,i to the -------- ~"said conclusion and the

';¢o§¢1us;on»¢f the trial Court is also based on

a decision_rendered by this Court in the case

[pr D}?-IWKPPAGOUDA FAKKIRAGOUDA PATEL «- vs --~

'vdKA$§LAWWA AND ANR. reported in 2006(6) AIR Kar

  R}296.5. In the light of the rival contentions

urged, a perusal o€£the order impugned in the-g'.