second petition for payment of stamp duty and penalty is maintainable - In view of the fact that the petitioner has already paid the stamp duty and penalty on the other documents as determined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur on the earlier occasion, it is not a case where the petitioner willfully not paying the stamp duty and penalty on the another kowl deed dated 03.08.1988 and the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.251 of 2013

 

Date:28.02.2013

 

Between:

 

Sanku Venkata Mutyala Rao                                … Petitioner

 

And

 

Kopparthi Lakshmi Narasamamba                       … Respondent


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Court made the following:
ORDER:



1.      This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 04.12.2012, passed by the Special Officer (Tenancy) – cum – Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasapur, in
I.A.No.1422 of 2012 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2007.

2.      The respondent herein filed the aforesaid ATC for eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule property. During the course of trial, the petitioner sought to mark kowl deeds dated 03.08.1988 and 27.02.1991 and possessory agreement of sale dated 18.07.1992 in respect of the petition schedule property. 
When the respondent took an objection for marking of the said documents, the petitioner filed I.A.No.210 of 2010 seeking to send these documents to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur for payment of penalty and stamp duty and the same was allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the penalty and stamp duty on kowl deed dated 27.02.1991 and possessory agreement of sale dated 18.07.1992. As the petitioner did not pay the penalty and stamp duty on the another kowl deed dated 03.08.1988, the same was returned to the trial Court. Subsequently, on the ground that inadvertently, he could not pay the penalty and stamp duty on the kowl deed dated 03.08.1988, the petitioner  filed I.A.No.1422 of 2012 to send the said document to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur for payment of the penalty and stamp duty. The  trial Court dismissed the said application by order, dated 04.12.2012. The same is questioned in this civil revision petition.

3.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.      There cannot be any dispute that 
under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 unless stamp duty and penalty is paid, a document cannot be used for any other purpose, even for collateral purpose under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 
In view of the fact that the petitioner has already paid the stamp duty and penalty on the other documents as determined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur on the earlier occasion, it is not a case where the petitioner willfully not paying the stamp duty and penalty on the another kowl deed dated 03.08.1988 and the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner.

5.      Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 04.12.2012, passed by the Special Officer (Tenancy) – cum – Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasapur, in I.A.No.1422 of 2012 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2007, and consequently, the said I.A. is allowed. The trial Court is directed to send the kowl deed dated 03.08.1988 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur for payment of penalty and stamp duty, within the stipulated time, as determined by it. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the civil revision petition shall stand closed.

_­­­_____________________

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

28th February, 2013
cbs


 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.251 of 2013

 

 

 

28th February, 2013

cbs





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.