Sri. Venkatesh @ Abhay Venkatesh v. Sri. Nanje Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. VENKATESH @ ABHAY VENKATESH S/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.52, SHANESHWARNAGAR ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560058.

¶2SMT RATHNAMMA W/O SRI VENKATESH D/O SRI SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT MOODALAPALYA VILLAGE MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562127 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA., ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI. NANJE GOWDA S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE THEREDAGUPPE POST KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130. …RESPONDENT

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:13805( WP(No.(47(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( (BY,SRI.M,MADHUSUDAN,,,ADVOCATE,FOR,, SRI,V,VISHWANATH,,SHETTY,,ADVOCATE,FOR,, C/RESPONDENT), , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND,227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE, THE,WRIT,OF,CERTIORARI,OR,ANY,OTHER,APPROPRIATE,WRIT, OR,,DIRECTION,BY,QUASHING,OF,ORDER,PASSED,BY,THE,III, ADDITIONAL, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, AT, BANGALORE, RURAL, DISTRICT, BANGALORE, IN, OS.NO.2101/2008, DATED,

18.10.2022, ANNEXURE-F, AND, PERMIT, THE, PETITIONERS, HEREIN, TO, MARK, THE, ANNEXURE-C, AND, D, AS, EXHIBITS, WITHOUT, PAYING, ANY, STAMP, DUTY, AND, PASS, ANY, OTHER, RELIEF, AS, THIS, HON'BLE, COURT, DEEMED, FIT, UNDER, THE, CIRCUMSTANCE,OF,THE,CASE., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.T.,NARENDRA,PRASAD, , ORAL(ORDER( This, writ, petition, is, filed, by, the, defendants, under, Articles, 226, and, 227, of, the, Constitution, of, India,, challenging,the,order,dated,18.10.2022,passed,by,the,III, Additional, Senior, Civil, Judge,, Bengaluru, Rural, District,, Bengaluru,in,O.S.,No.2101/2008,,whereby,Exhibits,C,and, D, marked, by, the, petitioners/defendants, have, been, impounded, by, the, trial, Court, and, a, direction, has, been,

issued to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,58,980/- and a penalty of Rs.15,89,800/-, in all amounting to Rs.17,48,780/-.

¶2The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioners/defendants, after entering appearance, have filed their written statement and also produced documents to be marked as Exhibits C and D. The trial Court has passed the impugned order impounding the said documents.

¶3The Apex Court, in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY vs. MONAPPA SHETTY reported in AIR 2024 SC 5327, has held that the trial Court has no power to calculate the stamp duty and penalty. Under the said Act, the documents are required to be referred to the competent authority, i.e., the District Registrar. The relevant portion is extracted below: " 21.8. The scheme does not prohibit a party to a document to first invoke directly the jurisdiction of the District Registrar and present the instrument before Court/Every Person after

complying with the requirement of duty and penalty. In such an event, the available objection under Sections 33 or 34 of the Act is erased beforehand. The quantum of penalty is primarily between the authority/court and the opposing party has little role to discharge.

¶22Reverting to the circumstances of the case by keeping in perspective the steps summarised in the preceding paragraph, we notice that, before the stage of admission of the instrument in evidence, the respondent raised an objection on the deficit stamp duty. Therefore, it was the respondent who required the suit agreement to be impounded and then sent to the District Registrar to be dealt with under Section 39 of the Act. In this case, the respondent desired the impounding of the suit agreement and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The trial court is yet to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. On the contrary, the trial court has called for a report from the District Registrar, so for all purposes, the suit instrument is still at one or the other steps summed up in paragraph 21. Therefore, going by the request of the respondent, the option is left for the decision of the District Registrar. Contrary to these admitted circumstances, though the suit instrument is insufficiently stamped, still the penalty of ten

times under Section 34 of the Act is imposed through the impugned orders. The imposition of penalty of ten times at this juncture in the facts and circumstances of this case is illegal and contrary to the steps summed up in paragraph 21. The instrument is sent to the District Registrar, thereafter the District Registrar in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Act, decides the quantum of stamp duty and penalty payable on the instrument. The appellant is denied this option by the impugned orders. It is trite law that the appellant must pay what is due, but as is decided by the District Registrar and not the Court under Section 34 of the Act.

¶23Hence, for the above reasons, the direction to pay ten times the penalty of the deficit stamp duty merits interference and accordingly is set aside. The trial court is directed to send the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 to the District Registrar to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable. Upon receipt of the compliance certificate from the District Registrar, without reference to an objection under the Act, the suit document be received in evidence. All objections available to the respondents except the above are left open for consideration."

¶4In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be quashed.

¶5Accordingly, the following order:

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S. No.2101/2008 is quashed.

(iii) The trial Court is directed to send the documents to the District Registrar for determination of the stamp duty and penalty payable. Upon receipt of the report from the District Registrar, the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41