- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 49429 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 2. SRI B SURESH S/O PAPPAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING A I FLOOR NO.45, 11TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN JAYANAGAR II BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 011. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PREETHAM PRABHAKAR, ADV., FOR SRI D. PRABHAKAR, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI B.K. MARIYAPPA S/O KEMAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 2. SRI M.S. GOKUL S/O B.K. MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. SRI M.S GOKUL BEING OF MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED IS REPRESENT BY HIS FATHER B.K. MARIYAPPA. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.45, 11TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 BENGALURU -560 011. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RADHARAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R-3; R-1 & R-2 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.5991/2015 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO I.A.NO.6 FILED U/S 38 OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT R/W SECTION 151 CPC. 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 petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants with a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.5991 of 2015 by the Court of LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 3. Suit in O.S.No.5991 of 2015 is filed by the respondent herein before the jurisdictional civil Court at Bengaluru seeking the decree of ejectment against the defendants and to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and also to pay ₹ 75,000/- towards use and occupation of the suit schedule premises from 01.02.2015 to 30.06.2015 and further direct the defendants to pay damages for the aforesaid period. In the said suit, defendants have filed written statement and opposed the suit claim. I.A.No.VI was filed on behalf of the defendants under Section 38 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 R/w Section 151 of CPC ( hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1957" for short) with a prayer to impound the lease agreement dated 01.02.2010 vide Ex.P.2 for the purpose of collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the same. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection. The trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.No.VI and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners / defendants are before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the in view of the explanation to Section 3 of the Act, 1957, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. He submits that though the instrument Ex.P2 is termed as a "Lease Deed" actually the said document is a mortgage deed and therefore the document attracts stamp duty as provided under Article 34 of the Act, 1957. He accordingly prays to allow the petition. 5. Respondent nos.1 and 2 who are served in the matter have remained unrepresented before this Court. Learned AGA appearing for the State, submits that the instrument has been not properly stamped and therefore the trial Court ought to have impounded the same and forwarded the document to the competent authority for collecting deficit stamp duty and levying penalty. 6. In the plaint, it is averred that, suit schedule property was leased to the defendants under Ex.P2 after collecting a sum of ₹.10,00,000/- towards refundable security deposit and the lease is for a period of 5 years. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 7. Perusal of Ex.P2 dated 01.02.2010 would reflect that possession of the suit schedule property was handed over to defendants for a period of 5 years, namely from 01.02.2010 to 31.10.2015, after collecting a refundable security deposit of ₹.10,00,000/- and no separate monthly rent or yearly rent is provided under the deed. The said deed is prepared in a stamp paper of Rs.200/-. 8. Article 30 of the Act, 1957 provides for payment of stamp duty on a lease deed of immovable property and Section 34 of the Act, 1957 provides for payment of stamp duty on a mortgage deed of immovable property. The trial Court has rejected I.A.No.VI filed on behalf of the defendants with a prayer to impound the document Ex.P2 on the ground that the said document is a photostat copy of the original document and it is not permissible to impound the photostat copy. 9. Section 3 of the Act of 1957 reads as follows "3. Instruments chargeable with duty.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in the Schedule, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that Schedule as the proper duty therefore, respectively, that is to say,— - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 (a) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in the territories of the 1[State of Karnataka]1 on or after the commencement of this Act; and (b) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of the 1[State of Karnataka]1 on or after that day, relates to any property situate, or to any matter or thing done or to be done, in the territories of the 1[State of Karnataka]1 and Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in respect of,— (1) any instrument, executed by, or on behalf of, or in favour of, the 1[State Government]1 in cases where, but for this exemption, the 1[State Government]1 would be liable to pay the duty chargeable in respect of such instrument; 1[Explanation.- Where no proper duty has been paid on the original of an instrument which is chargeable with an amount indicated in the Schedule as proper duty therefore, then a copy of such instrument whether certified or not and whether a facsimile image or otherwise of the original shall be chargeable with duty of an amount which is indicated in Schedule as proper duty for the original of such instrument, and all the provisions of this chapter and chapters IV, VI, VII and VIII of this Act shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to such copy of the original. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 (2) any instrument for sale, transfer or other disposition, either absolutely or by way of mortgage or otherwise, of any ship or vessel, or any part, interest, share or property of or in any ship or vessel registered under 1[the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958]1". 10. From a reading of the explanation provided to Section 3 of the Act, 1957, it is amply clear that even a copy of an instrument, whether certified or not, or whether a facsimile image or otherwise of the original, which is not properly stamped, such an instrument is chargeable with duty as indicated in the schedule of the Act of 1957 and all the provisions of Chapter II, IV, VI, VII and VIII of Act shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to even a photostat copy of the original. Therefore, I am of the opinion that trial Court was not justified in dismissing I.A.No.VI only for the reason that the said document is a photostat copy of the original. It is trite that mere marking of a document does not amount to admission of the same. In the present case, photostat copy of the original has been filed as Ex.P2, after the party was permitted to lead secondary evidence. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 11. In the case of G.M. SHAHUL HAMEED V. JAYANTHI R. HEGDE reported in 2024 INSC 493, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, notwithstanding Section 35 of the Act, 1957 even after the document is produced and marked, if it is found that the said document is not properly stamped, action can be taken by the Court for impounding such a document for the purpose of collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the same. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.No.VI. 12. Accordingly, the following ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 13.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.VI in OS No. 5991 of 2015 is set aside and consequently the prayer made in IA No.VI is granted. (iii) The trial Court is directed to impound the document dated 01.02.2010 at Ex.P2 and thereafter forward the same to the competent authority for the purpose of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48763 WP No. 49429 of 2019 collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty applicable on the said document Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24