Karnataka High Court
Smt S L Anurani vs B M Veerabhadrappa on 28 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
WP No. 11749 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 11749 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. S.L. ANURANI
W/O LATE R. KANTHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O ANIVALA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C, ADV.)
AND:
1. B.M. VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O LATE MARULAPPA
SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED
BY HIS LRS R-2 TO R-5.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI M
S 2. SMT. S.R. PARVATHAMMA
Location: HIGH W/O B.M. VEERABHADRAPPA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
3. B.V. BHAGEERATHI
D/O B.M. VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
4. B.V. LINGARAJU
S/O B.M. VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
5. B.V. HEMAVATHI
D/O B.M. VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
WP No. 11749 of 2020
HC-KAR
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS
R/O ANIVALA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRDURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.C. BALARAJ, ADV.,)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD.23.3.2018 PASSE DIN O.S.NO.203/2015 ON THE FILE
OF C/C.PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSADURGA AT
ANENXURE-H.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Plaintiff is 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 23.03.2018 passed on IA no.5 filed under
Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the
Act'), in O.S.No.203/2015 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge &
JMFC, Hosadurga.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
HC-KAR
3. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.203/2015 before the
jurisdictional Civil Court at Hosadurga, with a prayer to direct
the defendant to repay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with
interest paid under the Agreement for Sale dated 14.08.2006
and also has sought for a relief of permanent injunction in
respect of the suit schedule property. The contesting
defendants have opposed the prayer made in the suit by filing
detailed written statement.
4. IA no.5 was filed in O.S.No.203/2015 by the plaintiff
under Section 33 of the Act read with Section 151 of CPC with a
prayer to refer the agreement for sale dated 14.08.2006 to the
District Registrar, Chitradurga, for the purpose of collecting
deficit stamp duty and applicable penalty on the said document.
The prayer made in IA no.5 was opposed by defendants by
filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has
rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same,
the plaintiff is before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
has volunteered before the Trial Court to refer the instrument
which is insufficiently stamped to the competent authority for
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
HC-KAR
the purpose of payment of deficit stamp duty and applicable
penalty. Section 34 of the Act, provides for the same. He
submits that whenever the said provision of law is invoked, the
Court has no other option but to refer the document to the
competent authority for the purpose of collecting the deficit
stamp duty and penalty. In support of his arguments, he has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY VS MONAPPA SHETTY -
AIR 2024 SC 5327.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has
opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and submits, that
the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application which
was filed under Section 33 of the Act. The said provision of law
clearly provides that whenever an instrument which is
insufficiently stamped comes before the Court or any
competent authority, as provided under the said provision of
law, the Court or the competent authority is duty bound to
impound the instrument. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
HC-KAR
7. According to the petitioner who is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.203/2015, agreement for sale in respect of the suit
schedule property was executed by the defendants in his favour
after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-
and the total sale consideration under the agreement was
Rs.1,83,000/-. The suit is now filed with a prayer to direct the
defendants to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- collected by
them towards advance sale consideration under the aforesaid
sale agreement dated 14.08.2006.
8. IA no.5 was filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court
invoking Section 33 of the Act with a prayer to refer the
aforesaid agreement for sale to the competent authority under
the Act for the purpose of collecting the deficit stamp duty and
applicable penalty on the instrument. The Trial Court having
referred to Section 33 of the Act, has rejected the application
on the ground that the said provision of law only empowers the
Court to impound the document and not to refer the document
to District Registrar for the purpose of determination of deficit
stamp duty and penalty. The Trial Court has failed to consider
that the plaintiff has invoked Section 33 of the Act instead of
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
HC-KAR
invoking Section 34 of the Act for the relief which was sought
for by him in IA no.5. Mere quoting wrong provision of law
cannot be a reason to reject the prayer made in the application.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seetharama Shetty's case
supra, after having referred to Sections 33, 34, 35, 37 & 39 of
the Act, in paragraph no.21 has summed up the steps to be
followed by the courts and authorities concerned who exercise
powers under Sections 33, 34, 35, 37 & 39 of Act. In paragraph
nos.21.1 & 21.1.1, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as under:
"21.1. Section 33 of the Act is titled examination
and impounding of instruments. The object of the
provision is to disable persons from withdrawing the
instruments produced by them on being told that proper
stamp duty and penalty should be paid.
21.1.1. The person who intends to rely on an
insufficiently/improperly stamped instrument has option
to submit to the scope of Section 34 of the Act, pay duty
and penalty. The party also has the option to directly
move an application under Section 39 of the Act before
the District Registrar and have the deficit stamp duty and
the penalty as may be imposed collected. In either of the
cases, after the deficit stamp duty and the penalty are
paid, the impounding effected under Section 35 of the Act
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
HC-KAR
is released and the instrument available to the party for
relying as evidence. In the event, a party prefers to have
the document sent to the deputy commissioner for
collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the
Court/Every Person has no option except to send the
document to the District Registrar. The caveat to the
above is that, before the Court/Every Person exercises
the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, the option
must be exercised by a party.
10. From a reading of the aforesaid paragraph, it is apparent
that whenever a party who intends to rely on an insufficiently
stamped instrument, makes a request to the Court to refer the
document to the competent authority for the purpose of
collecting deficit stamp duty and penalty, the Court or the
concerned authority before whom such a request is made, has
no other option but to send the document to the competent
authority for the purpose of collecting deficit stamp duty and
penalty. It is made very clear that the said option must be
exercised by a party and the Court on its own cannot exercise
such power, and on the other hand, if the document otherwise
comes before the Court, then the Court is required to exercise
its powers under Section 33 of the Act.
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
HC-KAR
11. In the case of hand, since the petitioner had opted to
refer the document to the competent authority for collecting
deficit stamp duty and applicable penalty, the Trial Court ought
to have granted the prayer made in IA no.3, and therefore, the
order impugned cannot be sustained.
12. Perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court would go to
show that after rejecting IA no.5, the Trial Court has suo motu
exercised powers under Section 33 of the Act and has directed
the plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty as well as penalty on the
same day. Since the order impugned passed by the Trial Court
is unsustainable and the prayer made by the petitioner in IA
no.5 is required to be granted, the subsequent order passed by
the Trial Court on the very same day exercising its powers
under Section 33 of the Act also needs to be set aside.
Accordingly, the following order:
13. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.03.2018
passed on IA no.5 in O.S.No.203/2015 by the Court of Prl. Civil
Judge & JMFC, Hosadurga, is set aside, and the prayer made in
the said application is granted. Consequently, the suo motu
order made by the Trial Court on 23.03.2018 in exercise of its
NC: 2025:KHC:42988
HC-KAR
powers under Section 33 of the Act directing the plaintiff to pay
the deficit stamp duty and penalty is also set aside.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
