Kori Bharmappa Vs. Bapanahalli Obaleshappa and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Karnataka High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Revn. Petn. No. 185 of 1974|
|Judge||G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.|
|Reported in||AIR1975Kant127; ILR1974KAR1147|
|Acts||Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Schedule - Article 30; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 115 |
|Respondent||Bapanahalli Obaleshappa and ors.|
|Appellant Advocate||S.G. Bhagawan, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate||N. Venkatachala, 2nd Addl. Govt. Adv. for State|
.....guidelines and virtually giving a total go-by to the objectives of the scheme, as if a suitable or proper person is not appointed as an anganawadi worker, who in terms of paras 5.22 to 5.26 of the manual on icds is a key person in the implementation of the project, the scheme can go awry and the very objective of the icds programme is defeated. -- integrated child development service programme (icds) : social welfare measure implementation of the scheme icds programme mooted by the central government order of the government totally at variance with icds programme held, in the present case, it is not the correctness of the reasonableness of the scheme that is in issue before the court, but an arbitrary, illogical, irrational act on the part of the state government acting as the agent..........suit the plaintiff produced in evidence a lease deed which was unstamped. since the lease deed was unstamped, the court made an order holding that stamp duty is chargeable on the document under article 30 (a) (viii) of the karnataka stamp act, 1957. on the said basis, the plaintiff was called upon to pay rs. 1,237-50 as stamp duty and penalty. against the said order the plaintiff has come up in revision under section 115 of the code of civil procedure.2. chapter iv of the karnataka stamp act, 1957, contains provisions empowering the court, before which an unstamped document is produced, to levy stamp duty and penalty before it is admitted in evidence. the act also contains a complete procedure for rectification of errors, if any, committed by the court. the aggrieved party has to seek.....
1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 72 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Bellary. In the said suit the plaintiff produced in evidence a lease deed which was unstamped. Since the lease deed was unstamped, the Court made an order holding that stamp duty is chargeable on the document under Article 30 (a) (viii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. On the said basis, the plaintiff was called upon to pay Rs. 1,237-50 as stamp duty and penalty. Against the said order the plaintiff has come up in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, contains provisions empowering the Court, before which an unstamped document is produced, to levy stamp duty and penalty before it is admitted in evidence. The Act also contains a complete procedure for rectification of errors, if any, committed by the Court. The aggrieved party has to seek redress in the manner provided by the Act. If the duty and penalty levied are found to be prejudicial to the revenue, the Deputy Commissioner has also power to get the order rectified and to levy proper stamp duty and penalty.
3. The question its to what is the proper stamp duty payable on a document is not a matter that can be canvassed in revision before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That is the view of the law taken in Vasudevao v. Krishna Ramanath, AIR 1953 Trav-Co 559. I am in agreement with the view of the law as laid down in the aforesaid decision.
4. Since, the petitioner has a remedy provided under the statute to get a proper adjudication as to the correct amount of stamp duty payable, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 115 of the Code.
5. Accordingly, this Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
6. Petition dismissed.