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

28^th February, 2013

cbs

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.251 of 2013

 

 

 

28^th February, 2013

cbs