K.Valarmathi and Others v. Kumaresan

...Respon dents/Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in the Xl Additional District and Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, tA.No.1091 of 2022 in O.S.No.474 of 2010, dated 08.11.2022, during pendency of the above revision petition. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI G VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. KASI SOMAYAJULA JAYASHREE The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL PBIITION No.l of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No'1091 of 2022 in O.S.No.474 of. 2010, dated 08.11.2022 passed by the learned XI Additional District and Session Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein, the application filed under Order XIII Rule 3 read with section 151 0f CPC to de-exhibit Ex.B3 and Ex.B27 was allowed.

2.L. Petitioner herein is the respondent No.4-defendant No.4 and responclent No.1 herein is the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No.1091 of 2022 in O.S.No.474 of 2OlO.

2.2. It is mentioned in the cause title of the present Civil Revision Petition that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not necessary parties.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that the deficit stamp duty as objected by the respondent No.l-petitioner-plaintiff is curable by impounding and collecting the stamp duty on Ex.B3 and E.27 and instead of doing SO, as mandated and required under the provisions of tndian stamp Act, de-exhibiting Ex.B3 and B27, which were marked through DW-2, is unwarranted, unsustainable \ 2 and interest of justice requires to permit the petitioner-respondent No.4-defendant No.4 to pay the deficit stamp duty for the said documents.

3.2. Learned trial court ought to have seen that no objection was raised either by the trial Court or by any of the parties to the suit when the documents were marked through DW-2. Subsequently, an objection is raised with regard to the payment of required stamp duty i.e., o.o5o/o ofl Ex.B3 and B2T. Learned trial court ought to have directed the petitioner to pay the required stamp duty and penalty or should have sent the documents for impounding for collecting deficit stamp duty from the petitioner, without doing so, Iearned trial court has de-exhibited the documents Ex.B3 and ! I B27

3.3.. Learned trial court ought to have seen that the objection of respondent No. 1-petitioner-plaintiff is technical and curable defect and it is not the contention of the respondent No.1-petitioner- plaintiff that it is compulsorily registerable document but only required to pay the stamp duty of o.o5% and therefore, learned trial Court ought to have collected the stamp duty.

3.4. Learned trial court ought to have seen that section 35 of stamp Act mandates the collection of stamp duty and therefore, even by taking into consideration the objection of the respondent r' r- J No.1-petitioner-plaintiff, the petitioner may be directed to pay the required stamp duty only but not to de-exhibit Ex.B3 andB27 and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-petitioner-plaintiff submits that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties in I.A.No.1O91 of 2022 and rightly de-exhibited Ex.B3 and B27 as stamp duty penalty has to be paid on the above said documents at 0.05 in view of Article 7 Schedule I-A of Stamp Act as amended by Telangana Government by Act 19 if 2005 w.e.f O1.08.2C05. No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 985).

6. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.474 of 201O. Suit is filed for cancellation of agreement of sale cum GPA vide \ \ I i t a r: : l ;: F I I 4 t.' " Document No.215O of 2OO9, dated 2O.O4.2O09 and for perpetual injunction in respect of open land bearing plot No.42, in Sy.No.58, admeasuring 30O Sq.yds of 25O.83 Sq.mtrs., situated at venteshwara colony, Hasthinapuram central of Karmanghat Village, under ward No.8, Block No.7, G.H.M.C., L.B.Nagar with specilic boundaries.

7. Petitioner herein, who is the defendant No.4 in the aforesaid suit has filed his written statement and contesting the matter. Evidence of plaintiff (respondent No.1) is closed and the petitioner, who is the defendant No.4 is examined as DW-2 and got marked the documents on his side and the said witness is also cross- examined. when the matter is posted for arguments, respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff liled I.A.No.1o9l of 2022 under order XIII Rule 3 read with section 151 of cpc to de-exhibit Ex.B3 and Ex.B27, stating that stamp duty at o.o5% has to be paid on the document under Section 36 of Stamp Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial court ought to have permitted the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty as per Section 35 of Indian stamp Act 1g99. Learned trial court instead of permitting the petitioner-respondent No.4- defendant No.4 to pay the stamp duty penarty, de-exhibited the documents Ex.B3 and E.27. 1,I i I i I I I l l ! i , I i i I l l I I I I I I ! i I i i i ; l : I ; : i 5

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Auinash Kumar Chauhan u. Vijay Krishna Mishral,wherein, the Honble Supreme Court held that Section 33 of the Act casts a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound a d.ocument. The Court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect thereto.

10. Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 deals with examination and impounding of instruments and Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 deals with instruments not cluly stamped inadmissible in evidence. Article 7 Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act as amended by Telangana Government by Act 19 if 2005 w.e.f 01.08.2005, which reads as under: "AGREEMENT RELATING TO DEPOSIT OF TITLE- DEEDS, PAWN OR PLEDGE, that is to s&y, any instrument evidencing an agreement relating to -(1) the deposit of title-deeds or instruments constituting or being evidence of the title to any property whatever (other than a marketable security); or (2) the pawn or pledge of movable property, where such deposit, pawn or pledge has been made by way of security for the repayment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan or an existing or future debt - (a) if such loan or debt is repayable on demand or more than three months from the date of the instrument evidencing the agreement; (b) if such loan or debt is repayable not more than three months from the date of such instruments".

11. Ex.B3 is the original loan agreement, which is executed on Rs.1OO/- stamp paper and t!x.B27 is the agreement to create 1 RtR 2oo9 supreme'Crourt 1489 6 i'-'l mortgage. As per Ex.B3, the property shown is 150 Sq.yards out of 30O Sq.yards in Sy.No.SS, situated. at Venkateshwara Nagar, Hashinapurarn Central of Kharmanghat village and Ex.B2Z schedule property shows plot No.42 admeasuring 150 Sq.yards out of 3O0 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.S8, situated at Venkateshwara Nagar, Hashinapurarn central of Kharmanghat village, which is also executed on Rs. IOO/- stamp paper. L2. On reading of Article 7, schedule I-A of Stamp Act, which states that agreements relating to deposit of total dues required stamp duty penalty of O.05%.

13. Having gone through the decision cited by learned counser for petitioner, the facts are distinguished from the fact of the present case and thus, the ratio of thC above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. L4. Learned trial court has considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and respondent No.1 and rightly de-exhibited Ex.B3 and Ei27 which squarely falls under Article 7 schedule I-A of Stamp Act as they are to be impounded at 0.O5% on Ex.B3 anB2T.

15. This court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial court in view of the fact that powers of High court under Article { 7 227 of Constitution of India are limited as stated supra in paragraph No.S.

16. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the trial Court for payment of stamp duty and penalty. L7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed. T.SRINI VASAREDDY STANT REGISTRAR TffRUE COPY'I ON OFFICER to'r'. -n. Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge' R ReddY Distict at LB Naqar.

2. on6 cc to sri G Vasantha Rayudy, Advocate toPucl 3. one CC ts S*t i;i:ffi/li'* i"v"tr"n*' nir*tate [oPuc1 CD CoPies , 4. TWo N,"ABKPSL ,'.i . .i.! _.+iI HIGH COURT DATED: 1911112025 ORDER CRP.No.1079 ot 2023 F { o() ( * SEH'i I2 i{fi frJ 202$ * DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS ( \ \