Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ms. Mara Mardana vs Smt. D.L. Ambikamma on 10 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19835
WP No. 12888 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 12888 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.S. MARA MARDANA
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT MARA SANDRA
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT -572214
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA.H FOR
SRI H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT. D.L. AMBIKAMMA
W/O LATE BASAVARAJAIAH
Digitally AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
signed by R/AT KUMBARA BEEDI
BHARATHI S BIRUR, KADUR TALUK
Location: CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT 562082
HIGH
COURT OF ALSO AT
KARNATAKA C/O SHANTHAMMA
W/O GANGADHARAIAH
GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER
NAVILE, KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.R.RAGHAVENDRA, FOR
SMT.VARSHA R. IYENGAR, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19835
WP No. 12888 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.2.2019 PASSED BY THE IA NO.III
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TARIKERE IN O.S.NO.15/2015 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiff calling in
question the order dated 26.2.2019 passed in OS No.15/2015
by the Senior Civil Judge, Tarikere1, whereunder the Trial Court
has directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit duty of `17,73,200/-
within 30 days.
2. The relevant facts leading to the present petition
are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in OS No.15/2015 for
specific performance of the Agreement dated 9.3.2012. The
said suit is contested by the defendant. When the Sale
Agreement dated 9.3.2012 was sought to be tendered in
evidence, the defendant filed IA.No.3 to impound the Sale
Agreement dated 9.3.2012. The said application was objected
to by the plaintiff. The Trial Court by order dated 10.7.2015
Hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
NC: 2025:KHC:19835
HC-KAR
allowed the application and impounded the document and
referred the document to the jurisdictional District Registrar for
determining the duty and penalty. Upon receipt of the report of
the District Registrar, Chikkamagalur, the Trial Court passed
the order dated 26.2.2019 requiring the plaintiff to pay the
deficit stamp duty of `17,73,200/- within 30 days. Being
aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.2019, the present petition is
filed.
3. The submissions of learned counsel
Sri Ramachandra H for Sri H.R.Anantha Krishnamurthy, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri
B.R.Raghavendra for Smt Varsha R.Iyengar, learned counsel for
the respondents have been considered and the material on
record has been perused.
4. The primary contention urged on behalf of the
petitioner is that the Trial Court was not entitled to levy the
penalty and the same ought to have been done by the Deputy
Commissioner. Reliance is placed on the coordinate Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of United Precision
Engineers Pvt. Ltd., v. KIOCL Ltd.,2.
ILR 2016 KAR 1707
NC: 2025:KHC:19835
HC-KAR
5. The contention put forth by the petitioner is ex facie
untenable and liable to be rejected in view of the fact that this
Court in the case of United Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,2
after noticing the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the
case of Digambar Warty v. Bangalore Urban District3 has
held as follows:
"11. From the provisions contained in Sections 33,
34, 37(1), 37(2), 38, 39 of the Karnataka Act, 1957, the
view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Hon'ble Division Bench, the position of law is therefore
clear that the obligation cast on the Civil Court in
respect of an instrument not being duly stamped, is to
impound the same and determine the duty and penalty
payable. The Civil Court has no discretion, but to impose
the penalty of ten times of the deficit and permit the
party to pay the same. If the party chooses to pay the
same, the effect of impounding gets diluted and the
document will become admissible in evidence for the
purpose of proving the same as per law. In such event,
the Civil Court is required to despatch an authenticated
copy of the instrument along with the deficit duty and
penalty collected, to the Deputy Commissioner. The
matter does not stop at that. Though the Civil Court as
bound by law would collect the penalty at ten times, the
power is still vested with the Deputy Commissioner
under Section 38 of the Karnataka Act, 1957 to hold an
enquiry and reduce the penalty in the manner as
provided therein.
12. As observed in Digambar Warty (supra) the said
procedure is prescribed with a dual purpose, firstly, to
avoid overburdening the Court with the work of deciding
2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8776
NC: 2025:KHC:19835
HC-KAR
the quantum of penalty as it would require providing
opportunity and arriving at a decision. Secondly, it is
also to accelerate the proceedings before the Court by
giving an option to the party to pay the amount and
proceed with the case and thereafter secure a decision
from the Deputy Commissioner with regard to actual
penalty payable and obtain refund if any. On the other
hand, on determination by the Civil Court if the party
does not choose to pay the amount, the impounding will
continue to subsist. In such situation the instrument will
not be available to be admitted in evidence and as such
the original is to be sent to the Deputy Commissioner as
provided under Section 37(2) of the Karnataka Act,
1957. In that case, the Deputy Commissioner shall
proceed in terms of Section 39 of the Karnataka Act,
1957 and on such consideration after collecting the
amount, it will be sent back to the Impounding Officer
since on such collection of the amount the impounding
will stand diluted and the instrument will become
admissible."
(emphasis supplied)
6. It is clear from the proposition of law as noticed
above that the Civil Court, after impounding the document,
collecting the duty and penalty is under a statutory obligation
to send such instrument/authenticated copy thereof to the
Deputy Commissioner as required under Section 37 of the
Karnataka Stamp Act4 with the duty and penalty so collected.
Thereafter, a power is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner
under Section 38 of the Stamp Act to hold an enquiry after
Hereinafter referred to as 'Stamp Act'
NC: 2025:KHC:19835
HC-KAR
giving an opportunity to the person, who has paid the duty and
penalty to extend the benefit of reduction of penalty, if he
thinks fit.
7. Hence, it is clear that the Civil Court was justified in
requiring the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty as ordered
above.
8. It is also relevant to note here that the order of the
Trial Court dated 10.7.2015, whereunder the agreement was
impounded has not been challenged. Further, the petitioner
has also not disputed the quantum of duty and penalty as
assessed by the District Registrar.
9. In view of the aforementioned, the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that the order passed by the Trial Court is
in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this
Court in the present Writ Petition.
10. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as being
devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
ND
