Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 897 (KAR)

G. Raghavendra v. C. Harish

2010-08-16

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2010
Judgment Aravind Kumar, J: Order dated 5-10-2009 Passed by the XLIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.7545/2006 holding that agreement to sell produced by the defendant as admissible in evidence and the power of attorney dated 25-5-1995 ordered for being impounded are impugned in these writ petitions. 2. The facts in nutshell are as follows: 2.1. A suit in O.S.No.7545/2006 was filed by one Sri. Raghavendra against Sri. C. Harish and three others for permanent injunction in respect of two items of the property which had been described in the plaint schedule as item No.1 and item No.2. Respondents 1 to 3 (in W.P.No.33130/2009) and 1 and 2 (in W.P.No.33131/2009) filed two suits in O.S.No.8242/2006 and 8243/2006 against the petitioners herein and respondents 10 and 11 alleging that sites formed in the lands (suit schedule properties in O.S.No.7545/2006) had been purchased by them and on account of alleged interference they sought for permanent injunction. These three suits were clubbed together by order dated 1-4-2008 and after framing of the issues trial had commenced. 2.2. During the course of defendants’ evidence the first respondent herein who had been examined as D.W.1 sought to produce an agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 and General Power of attorney dated 30-5-1995 alleged to have been executed by one Sri. Chikkapillappa in favour of Siryuths V. Govindaraju and D. Ganesh (defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.7545/2006 and respondents 4 and 3 herein). An objection was raised by the plaintiff to the marking of these documents on the ground that they were not duly stamped. After hearing the learned Advocates, Trial Court by its order dated 5-10-2009 held that there was no possession of the immovable property delivered under the agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 and as such it was admissible in evidence and it was also held stamp duty paid on Agreement to sell was proper and sufficient. It further held that power of attorney dated 30-5-1995 is to be impounded with a direction to pay proper stamp duty and penalty as required under Article 41 (e a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. 3. W.P.No.31201/2009 and 33130 & 33131/2009 are filed by the plaintiffs in OS No.7545/2006 whereunder order dated 5-10-2009 is impugned on the ground that Trial Court ought to have held that agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 was inadmissible in evidence. 4. 3. W.P.No.31201/2009 and 33130 & 33131/2009 are filed by the plaintiffs in OS No.7545/2006 whereunder order dated 5-10-2009 is impugned on the ground that Trial Court ought to have held that agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 was inadmissible in evidence. 4. W.P.No.32113/2009 has been filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.7545/2006 contending that order of impounding the General Power of Attorney dated 26-5-1995 is erroneous and it ought to be marked in the evidence without payment of Stamp duty. 5. Heard Sri. B.V. Shankaranarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.31201 and 33130-31/2009 and first respondent in W.P.32113/2009 and Sri.N.R. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.32113/2009 and first respondent in W.P.No.31201 and 33130-31/2009. 6. It is the contention of Sri.Shankarnarayana Rao that under Agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 (Annexure-J) as per clause (6) possession is agreed to be delivered and hence he would contend that Article 5 (e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is attracted and stamp duty as payable under Article 20 i.e., stamp duty paid on a deed of conveyance is payable inasmuch as even when possession is agreed to be delivered before conveyance Article 5 (e)(i) gets attracted and Trial Court committed a grave error in holding that Stamp duty is not required to be paid on the ground possession of the suit schedule property had not been delivered though under the agreement to sell in question possession is agreed to be delivered. As such he contends that order of the Trial Court requires to be set aside and prays for allowing of the writ petitions. 7. He would also submit that under clause (6) of Agreement possession is “agreed to be delivered” and the transaction is to be read as a whole i.e., both the agreement as well as General Power of Attorney is to be considered as contemporaneous documents. He would submit that to ascertain whether Article 5(e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act is attracted or not, it would be required to be examined as to whether (i) possession is delivered under the agreement itself; and (ii) possession is agreed to be delivered under the document and if any of these 2 ingredients are present then stamp duty as required under Article 20 is to be paid. He would submit that by Act No.8 of 1995 to the Karnataka Stamp Act with effect from 1-4-1995 Article 5(e) came to be amended and even in a transaction where “possession is agreed to be delivered” was brought within sweep of Article 5(e)(i) and as such Stamp Duty is required to be paid accordingly. In support of his submission he relies upon the following judgments. (i) ILR 2006 Kar 3179. H.P. Basavarajappa Vs. K. Vijalakshmi and Others (ii) ILR 2007 Kar 4752. Sri. J. Prakash Vs. Smt M.T. Karnalamma and Another (iii) 2003(1) KLJ 518. Mahadeva Vs. The Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation and Others (iv) Order in W.P.11922/2008, D.D. 17-10-2008. 8. Per Contra, Sri N.R. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for defendant would submit that defendants are not claiming any relief under the agreement to sell in question. It is only for collateral purposes that agreement to sell is being produced-marked and when it is produced for collateral purposes and when no relief is claimed on the basis of said document proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 would get attracted and such documents can be looked into by the Trial Court even when there is no Registration of said document or not properly stamped and as such he seeks for rejection of W.P.No.31201/2009 and prays for allowing W.P.No.32113/2009. In support of his submission he relies upon the judgment in Karar Ahmed Vs. Rajanna and Others reported in ILR 2009 Kar 2864. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties the following points arise for my consideration. (i) Whether the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the defendant to mark the agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 on the ground it is admissible in evidence is to be sustained or reversed? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Trial Court dated 5-1-2010 ordering impounding of General Power of attorney dated 30-8-1995 and directing the defendant to pay Stamp duty under Article 41 (ea) is to be upheld or reversed? (iii) To what order? 10. (ii) Whether the order passed by the Trial Court dated 5-1-2010 ordering impounding of General Power of attorney dated 30-8-1995 and directing the defendant to pay Stamp duty under Article 41 (ea) is to be upheld or reversed? (iii) To what order? 10. Re: Point No.1: It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the first defendant that under clause (6) of the agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 the vendors therein had agreed to deliver possession of the property to the purchasers (to defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.7545/2006) and in view of the said clause to deliver possession under the agreement, Article 5(e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act was attracted and same duty as a conveyance (Article 20) on the market value of the property will have to be paid under Karnataka Stamp Act. Clause (6) of the agreement of sale dated 26-5-1995 and Article 5(e)(i) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 are extracted herein below: “Clause.6. The vendor and the purchasers have agreed that the schedule property consists of grape plants and the vendor shall remove the said plants within a period of TWO MONTHS from the date of this agreement and handover to the purchasers the actual vacant possession of the schedule property within the above stipulated period.” (Emphasis supplied by me) SCHEDULE (STAMP DUTY ON INSTRUMENT) Description of Instrument Proper Stamp Duty Article 1. xxxx Article 5. Agreement or (its records or) Memorandum of an Agreement (a) XXXX e) if relating to sale of immovable property wherein part performance of the contract. (i) possession of the property is delivered or is agreed to be delivered without executing the conveyance. Same duty as a conveyance (No.20) on the market value of the property 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 when no proper Stamp duty is paid a document is required to be impounded and would submit under Section 34 the document if produced in evidence would become inadmissible. In order to consider said contention It would be necessary to extract Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act which reads as under: 33. In order to consider said contention It would be necessary to extract Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act which reads as under: 33. Examination and impounding of instruments.- (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in-charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in the State of Karnataka when such instrument was executed or first executed: Provided that (a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to required any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (b) in the case of a Judge of the High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf. (3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, the Government may determine- (a) what offices shall be deemed to be public offices: and (b) who shall be deemed to be persons in-charge of public offices. 34. (3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, the Government may determine- (a) what offices shall be deemed to be public offices: and (b) who shall be deemed to be persons in-charge of public offices. 34. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.-No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided that- (a ) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable (with a duty not exceeding fifteen paise) only, or a mortgage of crop Article 35(a) of the Schedule chargeable under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3 with a duty of twenty-five paise shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion. (b) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (c) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the (Deputy Commissioner) as provided by Section 32 or any other provision of this Act (and such certificate has not been revised in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of Chapter VI). 12. 12. A perusal of these two sections it would emerge that whenever a document is tendered in evidence and is found that it is not duly stamped the document would be liable to be impounded and it would be required to examine whether the said document has suffered the payment of Stamp duty with a Stamp of the value and description as required by the law in force. In the Instant case when the document in question namely agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 was brought before the Court and sought for being received in evidence on 10-8-2009 Advocate for plaintiff had raised objection to mark the said document on the ground that it is not duly stamped. On account of the said objection being raised marking of the document was kept in abeyance till the order on such objection was passed. Thereafterwards on 5-10-2009 order came to be passed by holding that it is admissible in evidence. As seen from clause (6) of the agreement the vendor has agreed to remove the grape plants existing on the property agreed to be sold within a period of two months from the date of agreement and it is further agreed by the vendor to hand over to the purchasers the actual vacant possession of the schedule property within the stipulated period of two months. Thus, it would clearly go to show that vendor had agreed to deliver possession under Agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 even before execution of sale-deed and Article 5(e)(i) cannot get attracted to the transaction in question. 13. Mr. Naik appearing for the respondents would contend that when the parties are producing a document and does not rely upon it for claiming any right under the said document and when it is produced for collateral purposes it would become admissible in evidence as per proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and draws the attention of the Court to said proviso of Section 49 of Registration Act which reads as under: 49. Effect of nonregistration of documents required to be registered.-No document required by Section 17 (or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882).) to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or: (b) confer any power to adopt. or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. Unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act; 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877) or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument) 14. The admissibility of the document when examined with reference to Section 49 of the Registration Act the difference between Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act would also have to be borne in mind. Section 34 of the Stamp Act as extracted herein above mandates that no instrument chargeable with duty should be admitted in evidence for “any purpose” by any person having by law or by consent of parties authority to receive evidence if instrument is not duly stamped. Thus, bar under Section 34 is absolute which in effect would mean that a document which is not duly stamped cannot be admitted at all in evidence for any purpose if not duly stamped. Thus, under Section 34 of the Stamp Act there is absolute bar for the document being received in evidence itself. Section 49 of the Registration Act deals with the effect of non-Registration of a document and provides that if a document which requires to be Registered under law is not registered then such document shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein, nor can it confirm any power to adopt or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. However, proviso to Section 49 provides for an unregistered instrument being received as an evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence as part performance of a contract for which the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. This Court in K.Amarnath Vs. Smt.Puttamma reported in ILR 1999 Kar 4634 has ‘analysed the difference between Section 34 of the Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act and has held to the following effect: 13. This Court in K.Amarnath Vs. Smt.Puttamma reported in ILR 1999 Kar 4634 has ‘analysed the difference between Section 34 of the Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act and has held to the following effect: 13. The difference between Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act should also be borne in mind. Section 34 says “no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by unless such instrument is duty stamped”. Subject to the provision enabling the Court to collect the deficit Stamp duty, the bar under Section 34 is absolute and an instrument which is not duly stamped cannot be admitted at all in evidence for any purpose. On the other hand. Section 49 of the Registration Act which deals with the effect of non registration of documents provides that if a document which is required to be registered under law is not registered, then such document shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein, nor can it confer any power to adopt nor can it be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. But the proviso to Section 49 provides that an unregistered instrument may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purpose of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. For example, if a sale deed is executed on a white paper and is not stamped, it can neither be admitted in evidence nor be used for any purpose. But if a sale deed is executed on requisite stamp paper but is not registered and the executant refuses to admit registration, then the purchaser has a right to file a suit for specific performance, and rely on the sale deed, even though it was not registered, as evidence of the contract for sale. But if a sale deed is executed on requisite stamp paper but is not registered and the executant refuses to admit registration, then the purchaser has a right to file a suit for specific performance, and rely on the sale deed, even though it was not registered, as evidence of the contract for sale. Thus, thought both Section 34 of the Stamp Act (corresponding to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, both bar the document being received as evidence, the bar is absolute under Stamp Act (unless deficit duty and penalty is paid) and the bar is not absolute under Registration Act. A similar issue had come up before this Court in Mahadeva Vs. Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation reported in 2003(1) Kar.L.J.518 as to interpretation of the word “For any purpose” used in Section 34 of the Stamp Act and it has been held to the following effect: 6. The only area of controversy in regard to the use of such documents lies in determining whether the purpose for which it is sought to be used is really a collateral purpose. In Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh Vs. Rati Ram, the Apex Court held that even when an unregistered lease deed for a period of fifteen years was not admissible in evidence in support of the creation of the lease in that period, yet the document could support the plea that the possession of the person, in whose favour the same was executed was that of a tenant. To the same effect are the decision of the Supreme Court in Padma Vithoba Chakkayya Vs. Mohd. Multani and Another and that of the Privy Council in N. Varada Pillai and Another Vs. Jeevarathnammal. The decision of this Court in Raoji Appaji Kulkarni (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Badibi and Others, and Abdul Razack Sab Vs. H.K. Gopal Shetty, have following the above decisions reiterated the legal position and declared that even when a document is inadmissible for want of registration, the same is admissible to show that character of the possession of the person in whose favour it is executed. Badibi and Others, and Abdul Razack Sab Vs. H.K. Gopal Shetty, have following the above decisions reiterated the legal position and declared that even when a document is inadmissible for want of registration, the same is admissible to show that character of the possession of the person in whose favour it is executed. There is therefore no gainsaid that the unregistered sale deed relied upon by the petitioner could for the limited purpose of proving the nature of his possession be let into evidence notwithstanding the fact that the deed was compulsorily registrable under Section 17, but had not been so registered. The view taken by the Court below does not therefore suffer from any error as indeed none of the two parties have been assailed the correctness of the order to the extent it holds the document to be admissible for a collateral purpose. 7. That a document is being admitted for a collateral purpose does not however necessarily mean that it can be let in for that purpose-even when it is not duly stamped. Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, deals with instruments not duly stamped and inter alia provides that no instrument which is chargeable to duty shall be admissible in evidence for any purpose or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped. The expression ‘for any purpose’ used is Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is wide enough to include use of any document for a collateral purpose or transaction. In Ram Rattan vs. Parmanand, their Lordships held that the words ‘for any purpose’ used in Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, had to be given their natural meaning and would include even a collateral purpose for which the party relying upon the document like the same to be admitted. The following passage in this regard is apposite: “The words ‘for any purpose’ in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose. Where an unstamped document is admitted in proof of some collateral matter it is certainly admitted in evidence for that purpose which the Statute has prohibited. The following passage in this regard is apposite: “The words ‘for any purpose’ in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose. Where an unstamped document is admitted in proof of some collateral matter it is certainly admitted in evidence for that purpose which the Statute has prohibited. Consequently, an unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for the purposes of determining even the factum of partition as distinct from its terms”. 8. It is therefore difficult to accept the submission made by Mr. Shetty that just because an unregistered document can be admitted in evidence for proving a collateral transaction, any such use would entitle the document to be marked as an exhibit de hors the provisions of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The provisions of Section 49 of the Act remain limited to the consequences of nonregistration of compulsorily registrable documents. The said provision does not deal with or stipulate the consequence that follow if an instrument sought to be proved is not duly stamped. That part if provided for separately by provisions of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which does not make any exception in favour of documents sought to be admitted to evidence for proving a collateral transaction. So long as an instrument is chargeable with duty, the provisions of Section 34 would render it inadmissible in evidence for any purpose unless the same is duly stamped. 15. In view of the above proposition of law laid down by this Court and applying the principles enunciated therein to the facts on hand it can be seen from clause (6) of the agreement in question that vendor has agreed to hand over vacant possession of the property agreed to be sold therein even before the execution of the sale deed in favour of the purchasers. Thus, when the parties have agreed to deliver possession prior to execution of the sale deed the transaction in question cannot escape from the rigour or ambit of Article 5 (e)(i) of the Act. Accordingly the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted and it is hereby rejected. Thus, when the parties have agreed to deliver possession prior to execution of the sale deed the transaction in question cannot escape from the rigour or ambit of Article 5 (e)(i) of the Act. Accordingly the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted and it is hereby rejected. Further, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance and accordingly it is accepted and point No.1 formulated herein above is held in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants holding that defendant would not be entitled to mark the agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 without payment of proper Stamp duty. Hence, Order of the Trial Court dated 5-10-2009 holding agreement to sell dated 26-5-1995 is admissible in evidence cannot be sustained and it requires to be quashed. 16. Re: Point No.2: When the document in question namely the Power of Attorney was sought to be produced by the defendants in evidence dated 10-8-2009 plaintiffs raised objection for marking of the said document and sought for document being impounded due to insufficient Stamp duty. The Trial Court has held in the order impugned that Article 41 (ea) is attracted to the facts of the case. It is seen that under the General Power of Attorney dated 30-8-1995 executed by Sri.Chikkapillappa in favour of Sriyuths V. Govinda Raju and D. Ganesha defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.7545/2006 (respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.31201/2009) clause (10) physical possession has been handed over to the agent namely Sriyuths V. Govinda Raju and D.Ganesha. It reads as under: “10. It is seen that under the General Power of Attorney dated 30-8-1995 executed by Sri.Chikkapillappa in favour of Sriyuths V. Govinda Raju and D. Ganesha defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.7545/2006 (respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.31201/2009) clause (10) physical possession has been handed over to the agent namely Sriyuths V. Govinda Raju and D.Ganesha. It reads as under: “10. In case either of the party to this agreement for sale default or infringes or fail to perform their part of obligation agreed under this agreement for sale even when the other party is ready, willing and anxious to perform its part of obligations then the party at fault shall compensate the party not at fault a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only as LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and the party not at fault shall be entitled to take legal action against party at fault for full PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT OF SALE.” Under Article 41 (ea) if a Power of Attorney is given to promoter or developer or whether name called for purpose of construction, development sale or transfer in any manner whatsoever) any immovable property the Stamp duty that is payable on the instrument would be same as conveyance payable under Article 20. This clause (ea) to Article 41 has been amended with effect 1-4-1995 and the document in question has been executed on 30-8-1995 and as held by the Trial Court and analysed in paragraph 12 of its order that there is specific mention in the document that it shall not be deemed to limit the authority or power of attorney to do any act as may be found necessary and admittedly on such authority the Power of Attorney holders have acted as if they are the owners of the said property and have also conveyed the same by executing the sale deeds. Thus, Stamp duty Is payable as a conveyance under Article 20 of the Stamp Act under Article 41 (ea). In view of the fact that General Power of Attorney has been executed along with agreement to sell and these two documents are to be construed as contemporaneous documents and transaction is to be taken as one transaction. Further these two documents namely agreement to sell and General Power of Attorney are complementary and supplementary to each other. In view of the fact that General Power of Attorney has been executed along with agreement to sell and these two documents are to be construed as contemporaneous documents and transaction is to be taken as one transaction. Further these two documents namely agreement to sell and General Power of Attorney are complementary and supplementary to each other. In view of the same question No.2 formulated herein above is to be answered by holding that order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and same merits acceptance and is upheld. 17. Re: Point No.3: In view of the discussion made hereinabove following order is passed: ORDER (a) W.P.Nos.31201 and 33130 and 33131/2009 are hereby allowed. Order dated 5-10-2009 passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.7545/2006 C/w O.S.No.8242/2006 and 8243/2006 (Annexure-‘Q’) to the extent holding agreement to sell (26-5-1995) is admissible in evidence is hereby quashed and it is held that said document is inadmissible in evidence without payment of appropriate Stamp Duty as required under Article 5(e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. (b) W.P.No.32113/2009 is hereby dismissed and the order dated 5-10-2009 (Annexure-‘Q’) holding that Power of attorney dated 30-8-1995 is to be impounded with a direction to the defendant to pay appropriate Stamp duty and penalty under Article 41(ea) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is upheld. (c) No order as to Costs.