- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 31708 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SARASWATHI W/O LATE SRI. T K DHARANESHA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O TAMALAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N S BHAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAMAMANI W/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O KORAGADALU KOPPALU, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 2. SMT. T K PREMA W/O H R ANNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO. 1518, SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN - 573 211. 3. SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O LAXME GOWDA R/O NORTHERN EXTENSION, HASSAN - 573 201. 4. H.D. BHAGYA W/O K.T. DHARANESH Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 5. T.D. CHANDAN S/O K.T. DHARANESH BOTH ARE R/AT C/O H.S. DODDAIAH 3RD CROSS, VALLABAI ROAD HASSAN - 573 201. 6. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE T.T. KARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O NEAR CHRISTIAN CONVENT, BESIDES RING ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. 7. SRI VINAY GANDHI S/O LATE T.T. KARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, GANDHI LAW CHAMBER NO.170, VCN COMPLEX, 1ST MAIN, SHESHADRI PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 020. 8. SMT. SHANTHA LAXMI @ SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O SANJEEVA GOWDA, R/O HEMAVATHI NAGAR OPP. YATHINDRA CONVENT, HASSAN - 573 201. 9. DYAVAMMA D/O T.T. KARIGOWDA W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O MACHANAHALLY, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION AND TO SET ASIDE ON ORDER DATED 30-06-2025 ON 1.A.NO.47 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN INO.S.NO.3/2010 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW 1.A.NO.47 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION151 OF CPC INO.S.NO.3/2010 AS PRAYED FOR AND TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE DEFICIT STAMP DUTY OF RS.2,750/- ON THE UNREGISTERED PARTITION DEED DATED- 23-10-1993 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is defendant No.2(a) before the trial Court questioning the orders passed on IA No.47 filed under Section 151 CPC in O.S No.3/2010 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge JMFC at Hassan. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of brevity. 4. The plaintiffs had filed suit for partition and separate possession and for other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 passed away and the legal representatives of defendant No.2 are brought on record. The evidence has been adduced by both the plaintiffs and the defendants and thereafter an application was filed by the present petitioner/defendant No.2(a) seeking permission to pay the deficit stamp duty of ₹2,750/-, as paid on the unregistered partition deed dated 08.11.1996 in O.S No. 257/2005, in the present suit as well on the unregistered partition deed dated 23.10.1993. This application was contested by the plaintiffs and the trial Court dismissed the application by the impugned order and a direction was given to the defendant No.2(a) to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the unregistered partition deed dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 23.10.1993. It is this order that is questioned by the petitioner/defendant No.2(a) in this petition. 5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2(a) that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and the trial Court has not taken into consideration the earlier order dated 30.09.2024 wherein it permitted the petitioner herein to pay stamp duty and penalty of a sum of ₹ 2,750/- towards the unregistered partition deed dated 08.11.1996 which was marked in O.S No.257/2005 by collecting the said amount. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the Court had not objected and rather permitted the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 2,750/- on the document namely unregistered partition deed dated 08.11.1996, the same ought to have been accepted for the present document i.e. unregistered partition deed dated 23.10.1993. 6. It is also contented by learned counsel that in the earlier round of writ petition in W.P.No.33126/2017, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 this Court passed an order directing the trial Court to consider payment of penalty and duty in a sum of ₹ 2,750/- on the unregistered partition deed dated 08.11.1996. Hence, even in the present situation of the document dated 23.10.1993 the same amount requires to be collected by the trial Court rather than what was ordered by the District Registrar. Therefore, he contends that the petition be allowed and the trial Court be directed to collect ₹ 2,750/- towards unregistered partition dated 23.10.1993 towards stamp duty and penalty. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. She sustains the impugned order by contending that the trial Court has adjudicated the matter by impounding the document dated 23.10.1993 and has rightly directed the petitioner to deposit the stamp duty and penalty which is required to be deposited by the petitioner/defendant No.2(a). - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 8. She further contends that the question of permitting petitioner to pay sum of ₹2,750/- for the unregistered partition deed dated 23.10.1993 does not arise at all at any stretch of imagination, for the reason that this particular document dated 23.10.1993 was not the subject matter and neither was it questioned in the original suit or in the writ petition. No order is passed with regard to this particular document for payment of the stamp duty of ₹ 2,750/- in any suit proceedings or by this Court. These two documents are of two different dates and hence the question of drawing parity would not arise. 9. It is further contented by learned counsel for the respondents that the Trial Court has already impounded the document and referred the document to the District Registrar for calculation of the stamp duty and penalty. Whereby the District Registrar has submitted a report with regard to deficit stamp duty and penalty at the rate of ₹ 62,995/- being the deficit stamp duty and penalty at the rate of 10% amounting to ₹ 6,29,950/- in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 all total deficit stamp duty to be paid at ₹ 6,92,945/-. She contends that this order has not been challenged by the petitioner in any proceedings. Therefore, when the said order is not questioned, a separate application being filed to direct the trial Court to accept the deficit stamp duty of ₹2,750/- is unknown in law and the same cannot be appreciated and entertained, which is rightly done by the trial Court by dismissing the application. On these grounds, she seeks dismissal of the petition. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2(a) and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court on the application IA No.47. 11. Admittedly, this application IA No.47 is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2(a) to pay deficit stamp duty of ₹ 2,750/- on the unregistered partition deed like it was paid on the document dated 08.11.1996 in O.S.No. 257/2005. The petitioner cannot draw a parity with regard to another document in another suit where - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 stamp duty was permitted to be taken at ₹2,750/- and so also in the writ petition filed before this Court. There is no mention of this document dated 23.10.1993, therefore, the unregistered partition deed of 23.10.1993 was not the subject matter in the earlier suit in O.S.No. 257/2005 or in the writ petition for adjudication. Therefore, when the District Registrar has adjudicated on the deficit stamp duty and the penalty, submitted a report to the trial Court and the same having been accepted, the trial Court has directed the petitioner/defendant No.2(a) to make good the deficit stamp duty and penalty. He is duty bound to do so unless the same is questioned in accordance with law, which is not done by the petitioner/defendant No.2(a). 12. Coming to the question of entertaining IA No. 47, where the defendant No.2(a) has filed a fresh application de-novo bereft of the order passed on the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the same is rightfully rejected by the trial Court. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 trial Court as these two documents are different documents and the trial Court has rightfully decided the matter, which does not call for interference. 13. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER i. Writ Petition stands dismissed. ii. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2010 and is in the fag end of trial, the plaintiffs and the defendants having completed their evidence, now set down for cross-examination of PW3. What is now left is only addressing arguments on the main matter. Under the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter on or before 19.12.2025. iii. It is made clear that learned counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants will cooperate for expeditious disposal of the matter in accordance to the time frame fixed by this Court without committing any default. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51430 WP No. 31708 of 2025 iv. It is also made clear that any parties seeking unnecessary adjournment will be penalized and the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on such party. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3