[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mukesh Kumar Nahar vs Mr. Bikam Chand on 6 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
W.P. .No.25075/2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.25075/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MUKESH KUMAR NAHAR
S/O RIKAB CHAND NAHAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT JAIN GANESH JEWELLARS
B.M. ROAD, SAKALESHPURA
Digitally signed HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.
by RUPA V
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONER
COURT OF (BY SRI. PRATEEP K.C. ADV.,)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. MR. BIKAM CHAND
S/O MR. PARASMAL
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A NO.39, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS
OPP. GANESH BHAVAN HOTEL
HANUMANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560019.
2. SANTHOSH KUMAR NAHAR
S/O MOHANLAL NAHAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT JAIN ALANKAR JEWELLARS
B M ROAD, SAKALESHAPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.
3. MR. DINESH KUMAR NAHAR
S/O MOHANLAL NAHAR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
W.P. .No.25075/2022
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A JAIN ALANKAR JEWELLARS
B M ROAD, SAKALESHAPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.
4. T. JAWAHARLAL
S/O T. VANARAJ
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A JAIN MILAN TEXTILES
B M ROAD, SAKALESHAPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANU SHANKAR S.S. AND
SRI. C.R. PAVAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1
R2 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.04.2022 IN OS.NO.41/2021 ON
I.A.NO. 4 FILED UNDER SECTION 33, 34 OF KARNATAKA
STAMP ACT PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SAKALESHAPURA (ANNEXURE- D) & ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
27.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
04.04.2022 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.41/2021 by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpura (for short, 'the
Trial Court').
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
HC-KAR
2. Sri.Pradeep.K.C, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner and others have filed
a suit in O.S.No.41/2021 for recovery of money with
interest. In the said suit, the defendant filed an
application to impound the sale agreement dated
12.08.2014 on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped.
The Trial Court allowed the said application by impounding
the said agreement and directed the District Registrar to
calculate the duty and penalty. It is submitted that the
question of impounding of the document would arise if the
document is tendered in the evidence and before the
document is tendered in the evidence, the duty payable
and penalty would not arise. It is further submitted that
the agreement of sale does not evidence the transfer of
possession. It was agreed to transfer at the time of
registration of sale deed and the registration is not
mandatory. As per Article 5(j) of the Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), the stamp duty payable is
Rs.200/- yet Rs.500/- is paid. However, the Trial Court
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
HC-KAR
has not considered any of these aspects. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of Shri.S.Suresh v Shri L.Pothe
Gowda and Others.1 Hence, he seeks to allow the
petition.
3. Per contra, Sri.Manushankar S.S, learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned
order of the Trial Court and submits that the agreement of
sale dated 12.08.2014 is admittedly on the stamp paper of
Rs.500/- which is insufficient. Hence, an application is
filed to impound the document which has been rightly
impounded by the Trial Court and the instrument has been
referred to the District Registrar for calculation of the
stamp duty and penalty. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
petition.
ILR 2020 KAR 5156
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
HC-KAR
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the material available on record.
5. The petitioner and 3 others have filed a suit in
O.S.No.41/2021 before the Trial Court, for judgment and
decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.68,94,540/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of filing of the plaint till the realisation of the amount.
In the said suit, the defendant filed an application in
I.A.No.4 under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, seeking to
impound the agreement of sale dated 12.08.2014 and to
order the plaintiffs to pay the requisite stamp duty and
penalty. The said application was opposed by the
petitioner contending that the impounding of the
document would not arise at this stage until it is tendered
in the evidence and duly paid is correct. Further, it is
averred that the possession is with the defendant and
hence, the registration of the agreement of sale is not
mandatory and the stamp duty paid is as per Article 5(j) of
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
HC-KAR
the Act. The Trial Court, under the impugned order,
allowed the application by recording a finding that the
stamp duty is insufficiently paid and directed the District
Registrar of Stamps and Registration to calculate the
stamp duty and penalty.
6. It is to be noticed that the agreement of sale
dated 12.08.2014 is produced in the suit and the stamp
duty of Rs.500/- is paid on the said agreement. The
agreement of sale refers the total sale consideration as
Rs.80,00,000/- and also the payment of Rs.48,78,860/- as
part payment. Considering Article 5(e)(ii) of the Act, the
stamp duty leviable would be 10p. for every Rs.100/- or
part thereof on the market value equal to the amount of
consideration subject to maximum of Rs.20,000/- but not
less than Rs.500/-. In the case on hand, admittedly, the
stamp duty paid is Rs.500/- which is insufficient. Section
33 of the Act empowers every person having by law or
consent of the parties authority to receive evidence and
every person in-charge of public office before whom any
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
HC-KAR
instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is
produced or comes in performance of his function, shall if
it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped
impound the same.
7. The contention of the petitioner that the
document has to be impounded only when it is sought to
be produced as evidence, is required to be rejected as
Section 33 of the Act makes it very clear that the
document can be impounded by any person authorised by
law or with consent of the parties or by a public officer,
except a police officer, any document that is produced or
'comes in performance of his function'. Hence, the
document can be impounded by the authorised person
even if the documents comes in the performance of his
function, irrespective of the fact as to whether the said
document is sought to be produced as evidence or not.
The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes it clear that
when a document is insufficiently stamped, then the duty
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
HC-KAR
shall be paid along with ten times penalty in order to
admit the said document as evidence.
8. In the case on hand, the jurisdictional Court,
after considering the contentions and agreement in
question, has formed the opinion that the instrument is
insufficiently stamped and referred the matter to the
District Registrar of Stamps and Registration to calculate
the stamp duty and penalty. Hence, the aforesaid finding
of the Court is after correct appreciation of law and does
not call for any interference.
9. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 on the decision of
SHRI.S.SURESH referred supra is concerned, it is noticed
that the said case was mainly in the context of Rule 82 of
the Civil Rules of Practice and the specific facts of the said
case; and language employed in Section 33 of the Act
makes it very clear with regard to the power of Court to
impound the instrument even before the evidence is
NC: 2026:KHC:18356
HC-KAR
recorded. Hence, the said case would not aid the
respondent No.1 in the instant case.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
upholding the order on I.A.No.4 with the aforesaid
modification.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
