SRI. S.N. VENKATARAYAPPA v. S.N. SRINIVASA REDDY & Ors.

1. SRI. S.N. VENKATARAYAPPA S/O LATE S.V. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 111 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LRs 1(A) S.N. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O S.V. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 1(B) S.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY S/O S.V. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DT.05.11.2025)

2. SRI. S.V. NAGARAJU S/O S.N. VENKATA REDDY 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 (BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44621 WP No. 15147 of 2021 HC-KAR AND:

SRI. T. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O LATE S.N. THAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44621 WP No. 15147 of 2021 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.

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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44621 WP No. 15147 of 2021 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.

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.

Per contra, learned counsel contesting respondents has argued in support of the impugned order. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44621 WP No. 15147 of 2021 HC-KAR

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 exercise powers Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1957 and impound such documents/instruments.

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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44621 WP No. 15147 of 2021 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.

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 documents, the Trial Court ought to have forwarded the documents to the Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44621 WP No. 15147 of 2021 HC-KAR determination and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty as provided under Section 39 of the Act. Accordingly, the following order:-