Karnataka High Court
Sri K N Shivaprakash vs Sri K N Maruthi on 3 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.41091/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.N. SHIVAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
S/O SRI. K.V. NARAYANASA
R/AT NO.38, CENTRAL STREET
KUMARA PARK WEST
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560020.
by RUPA V
Location: High 1a. SMT. S. SARASWATHI
Court of W/O LATE SHIVAPRAKASH K.N.
karnataka AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT. #1758, 22ND CROSS
3RD FLOOR, M.C. LAYOUT
GOVINDARAJA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560079.
1b. MADHUKIRAN K.S.
S/O LATE SHIVAPRAKASH K.N.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT. #1758, 22ND CROSS
3RD FLOOR, M.C. LAYOUT
GOVINDARAJA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560079.
1c. VASUNDHARA K.S.
W/O K.V. SREEDHAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT. NO.203, LINK ROAD
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE-560020.
1d. SUVARNA M
W/O MANJUNATH M.N.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT. 1 TD LANE, 2ND CROSS
COTTON PET, BANGALORE SOUTH
CHIKPET, BANGALORE-560053.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
1e. S. PADMAVATHI
W/O S.M. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT. NO.45, 2ND CROSS
4TH MAIN, KEMPAMMA LAYOUT
MARIYAPPANA PALYA, SPM SCHOOL
BANGALORE VISHWAVIDYALAYA
BANGALORE-560056.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANOHAR B.K. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. K.N. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O SRI. K.V. NARAYANASA
NO.19/3, KALPATHARU APARTMENT
FLAT NO.302, NAGAPPA STREET
BENGALURU-560003.
1a. SMT. NIRMALA K.M.
W/O DATTATREYA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT.NO.367, 4TH MAIN
2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560040.
1b. SRI. VASANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE K.N. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT. NO.2, 3RD MAIN
5TH BLOCK, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560020.
1c. SRI. YASHWANTH
S/O LATE K.N. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT. NO.2, 3RD MAIN, 5TH BLOCK
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560020.
2. SMT. S. SURYAKANTHA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O K.N. MARUTHI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
NO.19/3, KALPATHARU APARTMENT
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU-560003.
3. SRI. K.N. JAGADISH CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE K.V. NARAYANASA
NO.4, 11TH CROSS, KILARI ROAD
BENGALURU-560053.
4. SMT. S.G. VIJAYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O S.N. GAJENDRA
NO.307-F, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS
2ND STAGE, 9TH BLOCK
NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560072.
5. SMT. VASANTHA KUMARI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O JAYAPRAKASH D.T.
R/AT NO.8, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
SESHADRIPURAM, LINK ROAD
BENGALURU-560020.
6. SMT. D.G. SREEDEVI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
W/O D. GOVINDASA
R/AT NO.5/3, 3RD FLOOR
10TH A CROSS
LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU-560021.
7. SMT. K.A. SUGUNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O K.N. ASHOK KUMAR
R/AT NO.1931, 3RD A MAIN ROAD
12TH CROSS, R P C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560040.
8. SRI. D.R. SRINATH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O D.C. RAJENDRA
NO.14, "KAMADHENU NILAYA"
12TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560023.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
9. SMT. SIMRAM PARWANI
@ D.R. KRISHNAVENI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O D.C. RAJENDRA
W/O VIVEK PARWANI
R/AT NO.68/7, 1ST FLOOR
KRISHNA BLOCK, 1ST MAIN ROAD
SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
R3 TO R9 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS
DISPENSED WITH V.C.O.DTD:08.01.2019
PROPOSED R1(a) TO R1(b) AND R1(c) ARE SERVED )
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN O.S.NO.2884/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 33RD
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE. SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.8.2018 VIDE ANNEX-E PASSED BY
33RD ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-33), AT
BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.2884/2017. DISMISS THE APPLICATION
VIDE I.A.NO. 3 (ANNEX-C) FILED BY R-1 AND 2 SEEKING
IMPOUNDING OF EX-P24 UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE KARNATAKA
STAMP ACT ALONG WITH DIRECTION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS TO
PAY DUTY AND PENALTY FOR THE SAME & ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
01.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
30.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.2884/2017 by the
XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.Manohar B.K., learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate
possession in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property
and for mandatory injunction against the respondents in
respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The
respondents filed an application after the evidence of PW-1 and
after marking of the documents from Exs.P1 to P24 seeking to
impound Ex.P24. It is submitted that Ex.P24 is a meeting
proceedings of the family members with regard to the item
No.1 of the suit schedule property. However, the Trial Court,
without considering the objections and without appreciating
that Ex.P24 is neither a conveyance nor a release deed, has
impounded the said exhibit and directed the petitioner to pay
the duty and penalty of Rs.11,000/-. It is further submitted
that pursuant to Ex.P24, neither any sale deed was executed
nor the petitioner received any consideration. Hence, treating
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
the said document as a release deed, the Trial Court directed
the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty which is
incorrect. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.A.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the
impugned order and submits that Ex.P24 extinguishes the right
of one party and creates right in favour of another party in
respect of property. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly
impounded the document and directed the petitioner to pay the
stamp duty and penalty. It is submitted that the Trial Court
has held that Ex.P24 is inadmissible until the requisite stamp
duty and the penalty is paid and the said order is required to be
challenged under Section 58 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is further submitted
that if the petitioner does not intend to rely on Ex.P24 even
then, he is liable to pay the duty and penalty. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of SANDRA LESLEY ANNA
BARTELS Vs. P.GUNAVATHY1. He seeks to dismiss the
petition.
1
MANU/KA/2107/2012
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 2 and perused the material available on record. I have
given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
by both the sides.
6. The petitioner filed O.S.No.2884/2017 seeking the
relief of partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 1/8th
share in item No.2 of the suit schedule property and for a
decree of mandatory injunction against the respondents with
regard to item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The
respondents filed written statement. PW-1 has been examined
and certain documents were marked. Ex.P24 is marked by the
petitioner. The respondents filed an application under Section
33 of the Act seeking to impound Ex.P24 and further prayer to
direct the petitioner to pay the penalty and stamp duty. The
said application was opposed by the petitioner stating that
Ex.P24 is neither a document required to be stamped nor a
compulsorily registerable instrument. It is only a meeting
proceedings of the meeting held on 26.04.2005. It is
contended by the petitioner that the said document neither
confers any right nor conveys the right in favour of the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
petitioner. The Trial Court, considering the contentions held
that the instrument is insufficiently stamped and impounded
the same by directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and
penalty of Rs.11,000/-. The petitioner produced the document
at Ex.P24. The said document indicates that there is an
extinguishment of right of one party and confirmation of right
in favour of another party. The Trial Court has come to the
conclusion that the said document is executed by the family
members releasing their share or title over the joint family
property in favour of one person and further held that the
petitioner is liable to pay the penalty and duty considering the
said instrument as the release deed under Article 45 of the Act.
I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by
the Trial Court in impounding the document and further
directing the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty. The
contention of the petitioner that no instrument is executed
pursuant to the said clause in Ex.P24 cannot have any
relevance to decide with regard to payment of duty and
penalty. The document clearly indicates that the same has
been entered between the family members and the rights have
been released in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule
property. Hence, the said instrument is liable for penalty and
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:23814
W.P. No.41091/2018
HC-KAR
duty as held by the Trial Court. PW-1, in his evidence has also
deposed that Ex.P24 is a family settlement which further
fructifies that there is confirmation of right and extinguishment
of right between the parties. The judgment relied on by the
learned counsel for the respondents need not be gone into in
this present proceedings as it is the settled law that it is always
open for the competent Court to take steps if the duty and
penalty is not paid by the party to the proceedings as directed.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is
rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
