- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24332 WP No. 7151 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7151 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.M.MUNINARAYANAGOWDA, S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SRI.B.M.NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 067. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARISH H V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a) SRI. B. RAMEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O LATE B.RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24332 WP No. 7151 of 2022 KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 067. 2. SRI. B.V.MOHAN, S/O B. VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BENDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 067. 3. SRI. B.MURALI, S/O V. BEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 067. 4. SMT. NAGARATHNA, W/O THRIMURTI NAGARA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT ALAPPERAHALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TQ, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 067. 5. SRI. B.JAGANNATH, S/O BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/OI CHIKKAARALAGERE VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24332 WP No. 7151 of 2022 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.A.G.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(a) & R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10-11-2021 PASSED BY THE 3-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN OS NO.260/2006, ON STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY PAYABLE ON THE DOCUMENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the Order dated 10.11.2021 passed in O.S.No.260/2006 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24332 WP No. 7151 of 2022 2. Heard Sri.Harish H.V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration and injunction with regard to the various items of the suit schedule properties against the defendants. The respondents filed the written statement in the said suit. The petitioners - plaintiffs, during the evidence, intended to mark two instruments that is dated 19.06.1996 and 09.11.1999. They are titled as 'Release cum Partition Deed'. The Trial Court noticed that the said instruments are written on insufficient stamp paper and proceeded to impound the documents. The Trial Court under the impugned order, directed the plaintiffs to pay ₹2,24,950/- as duty and penalty on the instrument dated 19.06.1996 and ₹2,19,890/- on the instrument dated 09.11.1999. The Trial Court, considering that the documents are not executed between the family members and as per Article 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act (for short hereinafter - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24332 WP No. 7151 of 2022 referred to 'the Act'), the duty leviable would be as per Article 20 of the Act and proceeded to order for payment of duty and penalty. 4. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Trial Court has grossly erred in recording the finding that both the instruments were not between the family members which is contrary to Paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is submitted that even assuming that it is a partition deed dated 19.06.1996, the required stamp duty to be paid under Article 39 of the Act is maximum of ₹500/-. It is further submitted that insofar as the Release Deed is concerned, it is covered under Article 45 of the Act and if it is within the family members, then also it should be ₹1000/- and not as ordered by the Trial Court. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Trial Court has proceeded mainly by considering that both the instruments intended to be marked by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24332 WP No. 7151 of 2022 plaintiffs are not within the family members. Perusal of Articles 39 of the Act, as well as Article 45 of the Act pertaining to the duty leviable on the partition deed as well as the release deed would indicate different categories of persons for levy of duty. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that the partition deed dated 19.06.1996 as well as the release cum partition deed dated 09.11.1999 are within the family members. The said contention is supported with the pleading in the plaint. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the instruments are not within the family members. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, I am of the view that the Trial Court is required to re-consider the issue with regard to payment of duty and penalty by considering Article 39 of the Act, as well as Article 45 of the Act and by considering the plaint averments and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24332 WP No. 7151 of 2022 covenants of the instruments. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Order dated 10.11.2021 passed in O.S.No.260/2006 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set-aside. (iii) The Trial Court shall re-consider the issue with regard to payment of duty and penalty after providing opportunity to the parties to the proceedings. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27