Karnataka High Court
Sri S N Venkatarayappa vs Sri T Gopalakrishna on 5 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44621
WP No. 15147 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 15147 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S.N. VENKATARAYAPPA
S/O LATE S.V. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 111 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
S.N. SRINIVASA REDDY
1(A) S/O S.V. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
1(B) S/O S.V. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Digitally
(AMENDED AS PER COURT
signed by ORDER DT.05.11.2025)
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT 2. SRI. S.V. NAGARAJU
OF S/O S.N. VENKATA REDDY
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THANDRAMARADAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND
DISTRICT-5621 01
REP. BY ITS G.P.A HOLDER
S.N. SRINIVASA REDDY
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44621
WP No. 15147 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. T. GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE S.N. THAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
W/O LATE S.N. THAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
BOTH R/AT THANDRAMARADAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND
DISTRICT-562 101
PRESENTLY AT KORAMANGALA VILLAGE
AVATHI POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRITHVIRAJ SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 30.07.2021 IN O.S.NO.91/2010 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT
CHIKKABALLAPUR (ANNX-H) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
I.A.NO.39 FILED IN THE SAID SUIT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court in this writ
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with
a prayer to set-aside the order dated 30.07.2021 passed on
NC: 2025:KHC:44621
HC-KAR
IA No.39 in OS No.91/2010 by the Court of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. OS No.91/2010 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court
at Chikkaballapura seeking the relief of partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule properties claiming 1/4th share
in the suit schedule properties. Contesting defendants have
filed written statement and have opposed the suit claim. During
the course of defendants' evidence, they had sought to mark
four unregistered partition agreements dated 18.08.2007. The
plaintiffs had opposed marking of the said document on the
ground that the said documents were hit by Section 17 of the
Registration Act, 1908. The Trial Court vide its order dated
06.02.2020 had permitted defendant Nos.1 and 3 to mark the
aforesaid documents and it appears that they were
subsequently marked as Ex.D 73(a), 73(b), 73(c) and 73(d).
Thereafter, IA No.39 was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 151 of CPC and Sections 34 and 58 of the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act
of 1957' for short) with a prayer to review the order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:44621
HC-KAR
06.02.2020. The said application was opposed by the
contesting defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide
the order impugned has allowed IA No.39 filed by the plaintiffs
and being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 and 3 are
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits that since the documents
are already marked, in view of Section 35 of the Act of 1957,
the Trial Court was not justified in impounding the documents
and directing the petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty and
penalty. He submits that even if the order impugned insofar as
it relates to impounding is upheld, in view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seetharama Shetty
vs. Monappa Shetty - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2320, the
impounded documents are required to be forwarded to the
District Registrar/Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of
determining and collecting deficit stamp duty and penalty.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents has argued in support of the impugned order.
NC: 2025:KHC:44621
HC-KAR
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Shahul
Hameed vs. Jayanthi R. Hegde - 2024 INSC 493 has held
that notwithstanding Section 35 of the Act, if it is found that
documents are marked in evidence without there being any
determination about the sufficiency of stamp duty paid on the
same, the Courts in exercise of their inherent powers under
Section 151 of CPC can exercise powers under
Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1957 and impound such
documents/instruments.
7. A perusal of the order dated 06.02.2020 would go to
show that the Trial Court has not applied its mind about
sufficiency of stamp duty paid on the documents which were
sought to be marked by defendant Nos.1 and 3 and permission
was granted to mark the documents as exhibits on the ground
that the documents in question can be produced and marked
for collateral purpose to show that joint family properties exist.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of G.M. Shahul Hameed (supra), I am of the
opinion that the Trial Court was justified in passing the
impugned order in exercise of its power under Section 151 of
NC: 2025:KHC:44621
HC-KAR
CPC, insofar as it relates to impounding the aforesaid
documents which are marked as Ex.D73(a), 73(b), 73(c) and
73(d). Vide the order impugned, the Trial Court has also
proceeded to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty
payable on the aforesaid documents by defendant Nos.1 and 3.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seetharama
Shetty (supra) has held that a document which is impounded
needs to be sent to the District Registrar/Deputy Commissioner
to be dealt under Section 39 of the Act. In the said case, it is
also observed that Section 39 (1)(b) of the Act provides that
penalty may extend to ten times the stamp duty payable and
ten times is the farthest limit which is meant only for very
extreme situations and the Deputy Commissioner/District
Registrar has discretion to levy and collect commensurate
penalty. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the
Trial Court was not justified in determining the deficit stamp
duty and penalty payable on the impounded documents and on
the other hand, having impounded the aforesaid four
documents, the Trial Court ought to have forwarded the
documents to the Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar for
NC: 2025:KHC:44621
HC-KAR
determination and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty
as provided under Section 39 of the Act. Accordingly, the
following order:-
9. The writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned
dated 30.07.2021 passed on IA No.39 in OS No.91/2010 by the
Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Chikkaballapura, is confirmed insofar as it relates to
impounding the documents and is set-aside insofar as it directs
defendant Nos.1 and 3 to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty at
Rs.39,512/-. The Trial Court is directed to forward the aforesaid
four documents impounded to the Deputy
Commissioner/District Registrar for the purpose of
determination and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty
as provided under Section 39 of the Act.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
