Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 13 (KAR)

M. PUSHPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1987-01-19

M.RAMA JOIS

body1987
RAMA JOIS, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Sub-Registrar, Sriramapuram, Bangalore to return the registered sale deed in respect of the house purchased by the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: the petitioner purchased house property bearing No. 906, VI Main Road, hosahally Extension, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, under a registered sale deed dated 24th February 1986 from the previous owner. The document was registered by the Sub-Registrar on 24th February, 1986. According to the document, the petitioner purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/ -. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Sub-Registrar has refused to return the document after registration. Therefore, he has presented this petition. In the circumstances, the government Advocate was directed to take notice for the respondents. ( 3 ) SRI N. Devadas, learned High court Government Pleader, submitted that as the Sub-Registrar, Sriramapuram was of the opinion that there was undervaluation of the property in the document, he had referred the matter to the deputy Commissioner as permit ted under section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp act, 1957 ('the Act' in short), and the matter is under enquiry before the Deputy commissioner. ( 4 ) SECTION 45-A of the Act oh which learned Counsel for the State relies, reads as follows:"45-A. Instrument of Conveyance. Etc. , Under Value how to be Dealt with: (1) the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange or gift has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange or gift has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the deputy Commissioner for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Deputy Commissioner shall after giving the parties a resonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in such manner as the State Government may by rules prescribe, determine by order of market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange or gift and the duty payable thereon. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, suo motu within two years from the date of registration of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, or gift not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange or gift, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, be may determine by order the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the procedure provided far in sub-section (2 ). The difference, if any, shall be payable by the parsons liable to pay the duty ; provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any instrument registered before the commencement of the Karnataka Stamp (Amendment act, 1975 ). (4) The order of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of (3) shall be communicated to the person liable to pay the duty. A copy of every such order shall be sent to the registering officer concerned. (5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), may prefer an appeal before the district Judge and all such appeals shall be preferred within such time and he heard and disposed of in such manner as the State Government may, by rules prescribe. Explanation: For the purposes of this Act, market value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Deputy commissioner or the Appellate authority as the case may be, such property would have fetched or fetch, if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the iustrument of conveyance, exchange or gift. "the action taken by the Sub-Registrar is in accordance with the power conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 45-A of the Act. In view of his making reference the matter is pending before the Deputy Commissioner who is required to take action in accordance with sub-section (2) of Sec. 45-A of the Act after holding enquiry with due notice to the Petitioner. In view of his making reference the matter is pending before the Deputy Commissioner who is required to take action in accordance with sub-section (2) of Sec. 45-A of the Act after holding enquiry with due notice to the Petitioner. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on Section 34 and 37 of the Act and contended that the action of the Sub-Registrar was contrary to those provisions. The contention is fallacious Section 34 of the Act speaks of document which is insufficiently stamped and provides that it is inadmissible in evidence. The proviso, however, makes a provision for admitting such a document in evidence by collecting duty in accordance with the rates provided in the proviso. That section has no relevance to the action taken in tha present case. That section comes into operation when a person produces a registered document which even according to the nature of transaction and the valuation of the property as discernible from the document itself is insufficiently stamped. According to tha prrvision if a document which is insufficiently stamped is produced before a court, tribunal or authority, it would be in-admissible evidence but could be admitted in evidence, if the party concerned pays the penalty at the rate provided in the proviso. Similarly Section 37 provides as to how instruments impounded should be dealt with. That also has no relevance for this case. The present case squarely falls within Section 45-A of the Act The Sub-Registrar being of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 1,10,000 mentioned in the sale deed as the price is on undervaluation of the property, has referred the matter to the Deputy commissioner who has to hold enquiry as provided under Sec. 45 A of the Act. The petitioner would have opportunity before the Deputy Commissioner to prove that the valuation mentioned in the document is correct. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that even after the Sub-Registrar initiated action under section 45-A of the Act, he was not justified in retaining the document. The petitioner has also filed a memo which reads as follows :"the petitioner here by undertakes if the original sale deed were to be returned in pursuance of this Hon'ble court's order by the respondent, the petitioner shall not present the said this document before the Corporation authority for getting the khaia transferred. The petitioner has also filed a memo which reads as follows :"the petitioner here by undertakes if the original sale deed were to be returned in pursuance of this Hon'ble court's order by the respondent, the petitioner shall not present the said this document before the Corporation authority for getting the khaia transferred. The petitioner also underiakes to produce the original document as and when required by the Deputy Commissioner". In view of the memo, it appears to me that a direction should be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to whom the document has already been sent by the sub-Registrar, to return the said document, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall produce the same before the Deputy Commissioner as and when required. The Deputy Commissioner shall however retain a Photo-stat of the document before returning the document to the petitioner. 6. In the result, I make the following :- order (i) The Writ Petition in ao far as it relates to the action initiated by the sub-Registrar, is concerned, it is dismissed. (ii) A direction, shall however issue to the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner to return the original registered document to the petitioner by taking and retaining a. photo copy of the document subject to the petitioner producing it before him as and when it is required. ( 7 ) SRI N. Devadas, learned High court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance for the respondents. ( 8 ) PREPARE a carbon copy of the order and despatch the same to the learned High Court Government Pleader. Partly Allowed. --- *** --- .