Karnataka High Court
Smt. Venkatalakshmamma vs Sri. Abhiram .P.S on 29 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43276
WP No. 2960 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 2960 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O D. VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT BACHENAHATTI VILLAGE
AND POST, KASABA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANGAR - 562 120.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI ABHIRAM .P.S.
S/O SHREERAM
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO. 33, 34,35
Digitally signed 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR
by NANDINI M BANGALORE - 560 009.
S
Location: HIGH 2. SRI R. SHASHANK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O S. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT MUNICIPAL NO.2464-VS 425
THIRUMALE HAND POST EXTENSION
MAGADI TOWN, RAMANGARA - 562 120
AND ALSO RESIDING AT
HEMAVATHI NILAYA
NES EXTENSION, WARD NO.5
MAGADI TOWN
RAMANGARA - 562 120.
3. SMT. SUSHEELA RAMESH
S/O S. RAMESH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43276
WP No. 2960 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
HEMAVATHI NILAYA
NEX EXTENSION, WARD NO.5
MAGADI TOWN
RAMANGAR - 562 120.
4. DISTRICT REGISTER
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
NO.103, BASEMENT FLOOR
DISTRICT OFFICE BUILDING
BANGALORE MYOSRE RAOD,
RAMANGAR TOWN - 562 159.
5. VARTHUR SUB REGISTRAR
BM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR
MUTHUSANDRA ROAD
VARTHUR, BANGALORE - 560 087.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VISHWANATHA K, ADV, ADV., FOR R-1;
SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R-4 & R-5;
V/O/D 24.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 IS D/W)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A, ORDER
DTD 04.11.2023, IN O.S.NO.227/2020 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.
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. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed by defendant no.3 with a prayer to set aside the
order dated 04.11.2023 passed on IA no.7 in O.S.No.227/2020
by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi.
NC: 2025:KHC:43276
HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. O.S.No.227/2020 is filed by the jurisdictional Civil Court
at Magadi, by respondent no.1 herein seeking the relief of
specific performance of the agreement for sale dated
04.09.2017. In the said suit, the contesting defendants have
filed a detailed written statement opposing the prayer made in
the suit. IA no.7 was filed by defendant no.3 under Sections 33
to 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'),
with a prayer to impound the agreement for sale dated
04.09.2017 and to collect deficit stamp duty and penalty on the
said document. The said application was opposed by the
plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order
impugned, has rejected the said application and being
aggrieved by the same, defendant no.3 is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that stamp
duty has been paid on the document in question after the suit
was filed. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed a photostat
copy of the document and subsequently he has approached the
competent authority and has paid stamp duty. He submits that
the competent authority ought to have collected the deficit
NC: 2025:KHC:43276
HC-KAR
stamp duty and penalty as provided under Section 33 of the
Act, which is ten times the stamp duty that was liable to be
paid. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA
no.7 filed on behalf of defendant no.3. In support of his
arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case
of JAVER CHAND & ORS. VS PUKHRAJ SURANA - AIR 1961 SC
1655.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff has argued
in support of the order impugned and submits that the original
sale agreement was produced before the Trial Court only after
the same was duly stamped, and therefore, the Trial Court was
fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
6. O.S.No.227/2020 is filed by respondent no.1 herein with
a prayer for specific performance of the sale agreement dated
04.09.2017. Along with the plaint, only the photostat copy of
the said document was produced. It appears that subsequently
plaintiff had approached the competent authority and has paid
the deficit stamp duly which is permissible under Section 39 of
the Act. Thereafter, the said document was produced before
the Trial Court and defendant no.3 had raised an objection and
NC: 2025:KHC:43276
HC-KAR
had filed IA no.7 with a prayer to impound the said document
and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the document
as provided under Section 33 of the Act.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SEETHARAMA
SHETTY VS MONAPPA SHETTY - AIR 2024 SC 5327, in
paragraph nos.21.1 & 21.1.1, has observed 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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:43276
HC-KAR
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.
8. From a reading of the aforesaid, it is very clear that when
a party makes a request to the court to forward the document
to the competent authority so as to enable him to pay the
deficit stamp duty, in such an event, the Trial Court has no
other option but to refer the document to the competent
authority to enable the party to pay the deficit stamp duty. In
the said case, it is specifically observed that in such an event,
the court cannot proceed under Section 33 of the Act and
collect deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty as provided
under Section 33 of the Act. In the present case, party has
voluntarily approached competent authority and has paid the
deficit stamp duty and penalty levied on him.
9. The Trial Court having appreciated the fact that the
original of the document in question was produced before the
court for the first time after having tendered the same before
the competent authority for the purpose of collecting deficit
stamp duty, has rightly observed that the same is permissible
NC: 2025:KHC:43276
HC-KAR
under Section 34 of the Act, and accordingly has rejected the
application IA no.7 filed on behalf of the defendant.
10. The judgment in Javer Chand's case supra is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case
and it is trite that a judgment can be relied as a precedent only
if it is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
11. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court,
and I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
