Karnataka High Court
Sri M Devaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41018
WP No. 9780 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 9780 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M. DEVARAJ
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGEDA BOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.3976, 34TH MAIN
19TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 050.
...PETITIONER
(BY DR. PRAJWAL K ARADHYA, ADV., FOR
SRI S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
signed by
NANDINI M S
Location: 2. SRI M. CHIKKAHONNAIAH
HIGH COURT /O LATE HONNAIAH
OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS.
3. SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O SRI CHIKKAHONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
4. SRI HONNAIAH
S/O SRI CHIKKAHONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
5. SMT. HONGANORAMMA
W/O SRI HONNIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41018
WP No. 9780 of 2021
HC-KAR
6. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O LATE HONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
7. SMT. INDIRA
D/O HONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
8. SRI KEMPARAJU
S/O LATE HONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
9. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O SRI KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
10. SMT. NAGARATNA
D/O KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
11. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.
BEING MIONR REPRESENTED
BY HIS FATEHR AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN, SRI KEMPARAJU.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BARIDODDI
VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R-1;
V/O/D 08.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-4,
R-5 & R-7 TO R-11 IS D/W;
R-6 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 02.12.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA IN O.S.
NO.144/2008, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41018
WP No. 9780 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.12.2020
passed in O.S.No.144/2008 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned AGA for respondent no.1-State.
3. Petitioner had filed O.S.No.144/2008 before the
jurisdictional Civil Court at Ramanagara, seeking the relief of
specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.05.2005.
The dispute between the parties was settled outside court
during the pendency of O.S.No.144/2008 and the suit was
dismissed as not pressed thereafter on 27.01.2011.
Subsequently, an application was filed before the Trial Court in
O.S.No.144/2008 by the plaintiff under Order XIII Rule 9 read
with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to return the original
documents marked in the suit and also the original agreement
of sale dated 18.05.2005. Vide the order impugned, the learned
NC: 2025:KHC:41018
HC-KAR
Trial judge while disposing of the application filed by the
plaintiff, has held that petitioner/plaintiff is liable to pay stamp
duty as provided under Article 5(e) of the Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') on the agreement for sale dated
18.05.2005. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is
before this court assailing the order impugned passed on the
application filed by the petitioner seeking return of the original
agreement of sale and the original documents marked in the
suit.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
original agreement for sale was not marked before the Trial
Court, and therefore, the learned Trial Judge was not justified
in holding that the said instrument is liable to be impounded
under Section 33 of the Act. In support of his argument, he has
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
S.SURESH VS SHRI L.POTHE GOWDA & OTHERS - ILR 2010
KAR 5156.
5. Section 33 of the Act, reads as under:
"33. Examination and impounding of
instruments.- (1) Every person having by law or
consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and
NC: 2025:KHC:41018
HC-KAR
every person in charge of a public office, except an
officer of police, before whom any instrument,
chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or
comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it
appears to him that such instrument is not duly
stamped, impound the same.
(2) For that purpose every such person shall
examine every instrument so chargeable and so
produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain
whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and
description required by the law in force in the State of
Karnataka when such instrument was executed or first
executed:
Provided that,--
(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to
require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to
examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do,
any instrument coming before him in the course of any
proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII
or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898;
(b) in the case of a Judge of the High Court, the
duty of examining and impounding any instrument
under this section may be delegated to such officer as
the Court appoints in this behalf.
(3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of
doubt, the Government may determine,--
NC: 2025:KHC:41018
HC-KAR
(a) what offices shall be deemed to be
public offices; and
(b) who shall be deemed to be persons in
charge of public offices."
6. A reading of the aforesaid provision of law makes it very
clear that every person having by law or consent of parties
authority to receive evidence, and every person in-charge of
public office before whom an instrument, chargeable in his
opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of
his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is
not duly stamped, impound the same.
7. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the moment a
document is produced or a document comes before a public
officer as stated in Section 33 of the Act, he is duty bound to
consider whether the said document is duly stamped, and sub-
section (2) of Section 33 of the Act provides that, for the said
purpose, he is required to examine the instrument in order to
ascertain whether the instrument is properly stamped.
Therefore, it is not necessary that for the purpose of invoking
the powers under Section 33 of the Act, the
NC: 2025:KHC:41018
HC-KAR
instrument/document ought to have been tendered in evidence
or marked during the course of evidence. Even if it is produced
or if it comes before the court otherwise, it becomes the duty of
the court to examine the said document whether it is properly
stamped or not.
8. In Suresh's case, this Court has observed that a
document or instrument which is required to be duly stamped
and is not duly stamped or insufficiently stamped, is
inadmissible in evidence, and it is also observed that once a
document is marked, the admissibility of the said document on
the ground that it is not properly stamped cannot be raised in
view of Section 35 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of
the said case, it has been further observed that in the light of
procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and
under Sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Act, impounding of the
document has to be considered only when it is produced in
evidence and not otherwise. That does not mean that a
document which is not marked cannot be impounded in
exercise of the powers of the Court under Section 33 of the Act.
NC: 2025:KHC:41018
HC-KAR
9. In the case of CHANVAL ANANTHAREDDY VERSUS STATE
OF MYSORE - 1971 MYS.LJ. SH.N. 58, this Court has held that
power to impound the document under Section 33 of the Act,
does not come to an end with the disposal of the suit.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully
justified in passing the order impugned directing the petitioner
to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the sale
agreement, which is found to be not properly stamped. Under
the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this writ petition
does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
