Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 67127 (KAR)

SRI G M CHANDRASHEKAR v. SRI G S MAHESWARAPPA

WP/25747/2025 · 2025-10-16

Pradeep Singh Yerur

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 25747 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI G M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O VEERAGASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ADVOCATE PRACTICING AT BENGALURU DOOR NO.174, KRUSHI, 1ST A CROSS, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, ANDRALLI MAIN ROAD, NELAGADIRENA HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH B J.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G S MAHESWARAPPA S/O LATE G H SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SMT. ROOPA W/O G S MAHESWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GUMMANURU VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 002. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE IN FR NO. OS.NO.220/2024 VIDE ANNXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO REGISTER THE ORIGINAL SUIT AND PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Mahesh. B J, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition is filed by the plaintiff, who had initiated the suit. Prior to the registration of the suit, a Filing Registration Number (FR Number) was accorded in O.S.No. 220/2024. Suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of specific performance against the respondents/defendants. Even before the suit could be registered, at the stage of the filing register itself, the trial Court has ordered the sale agreement dated 12.05.2023, relied and filed by the plaintiff along with his plaint to be impounded and office was directed to receive the duty and penalty on the said agreement as per the letter dated 05.05.2025 of the District Registrar. This is questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12.05.2023 against the defendants and at the time of filing of the suit, he annexed a copy of the said original agreement of sale. He contends that the sale agreement is an unregistered document executed on a stamp paper of Rs.200/- and the said agreement stipulates delivery of possession and same was an objection raised by the Registry. After filing of the suit on 27.07.2024, since the original suit was not registered by giving a separate suit number, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to refer the original agreement of sale, for collection of duty and penalty in accordance with law. The said application was filed on 12.08.2024. Thereafter based on the said application, the copy of the agreement of sale was sent to the District Registrar, Davanagere, to calculate the duty and penalty payable on the said document. Accordingly, the District Registrar vide his letter dated 21.01.2025 informed the trial Court with regard to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale/document to be Rs.1,35,000/- under Section 5e (i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 4. This being the situation, once again the Registry of the trial Court issued a letter dated 28.04.2025 requesting the District Registrar to fix the quantum of penalty payable on the document for which the District Registrar vide his letter dated 05.05.2025 stated that under Section 39(1)(b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, total penalty payable would be Rs.14,85,000/-. The same was sent to the trial Court. Based on which the trial Court has passed the order dated 03.06.2025 impounding the document namely the original sale agreement and directed the Office to receive the duty and penalty payable on the agreement in terms of the letter dated 05.05.2025. 5. This being the situation, the plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court on 03.06.2025 calling upon the plaintiff to pay the duty and penalty on the said agreement of sale dated 12.05.2023, on the basis of the order passed by the District Registrar on 05.05.2025. At the instance of the plaintiff who had filed an application to refer the matter to the District Registrar for calculation of the stamp duty and the penalty. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has committed an error in treating the issue of the stamp duty payable on the document to be a preliminary objection for registering the suit. Therefore the issue for consideration must be that whether a document is compulsorily required to be registered as contemplated under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the same would require stamp duty and penalty as contemplated under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. He further contends that the trial Court has not yet registered the original suit by giving a suit number, prior to that and issuance of notice has passed this impugned order. Therefore, same is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 7. It is also contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by him is for specific performance of the contract and the petitioner has not sought for any relief with regard to possession of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property. So also he contends that the agreement of sale coupled with possession to an unregistered document could be admitted as evidences for contract in a suit for specific performance, in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, he contends the action of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 the trial Court in exercising the power to collect the stamp duty in the present stage is premature. The trial Court ought to have proceeded to issue notice to the defendants and further upon completion of the proceedings, the trial Court could have raised this issue with regard to payment of the stamp duty, deficit of stamp duty and penalty, if any, at time of the document being produced for evidence. 8. Learned counsel contends that he has merely presented the plaint along with the original agreement of sale and the same cannot be construed to be a document which requires registration compulsorily or that the stamp duty to be attracted on the said document. It is also the grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been heard in the matter and there is no adjudication. There is no adjudication of the stamp duty neither by the District Registrar under Section 41 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 nor by the Court and therefore the order passed is illegal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the trial Court dated 03.06.2025. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 10. The facts are not in dispute. It would be relevant to extract the provisions of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which reads as under: '' 33. Examination and impounding of instruments.- (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in-charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in the 1[State of Karnataka]1 when such instrument was executed or first executed:'' 11. Is also relevant to extract the provisions of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which reads as under: '' 49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.—No document required by section 17 1[or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall— (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:'' ''1[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) 2, 3*** or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]'' 12. Undoubtedly, present case the petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract relying upon original agreement of sale. No doubt the Court has the powers as contemplated under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 to impound the document as soon as it is presented before the Court. But nothing prevents the Court from issuing notice to the defendants and proceeding further in the matter. If at all the trial Court comes to the conclusion after adjudication of the matter with regard to the duty and penalty on the document which requires to be stamped in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, it would be within the jurisdiction and power of the trial Court to impound the document, send the document for adjudication or adjudicate it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 by itself and collect the necessary stamp duty and the penalty, if any. However, the adjudication process has to take place and in that process the petitioner who is the party concerned would have to be heard either by the District Registrar or by the Court itself while deciding the matter on the duty and penalty. The same will have been done with the case on hand. Be that as it may. 13. The trial Court need not to keep the matter at the stage of registration instead register the original suit number and issue notice and proceed further in the matter. The trial Court shall proceed further in the matter by registration of the suit and hear the plaintiff and pass orders in accordance with law as contemplated under Sections 33, 34, 37, 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and also consider the provisions of Section 49 including proviso of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Under these circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is disposed of. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41628 WP No. 25747 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Davanagere in F.R.No: O.S.No.220/2024 is hereby set aside. (iii) The trial Court is directed to register the original suit and the trial Court is at liberty to proceed further in the matter by issuance of notice and parallelly trial Court is at liberty to proceed further with regard to adjudication of the document in question, while doing so, it is needless to mention that the petitioner/plaintiff shall be provided an opportunity of having at the stage of adjudication with regard to the duty and the penalty, if any to be imposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14