- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12670/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: N. NARASIHMA S/O M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.21, 6TH CROSS K.K. LANE, COTTONPET BENGALURU-560053. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDARADHYA B.G. ADV.,) AND: SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESH D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.21, 6TH CROSS K.K. LANE, COTTONPET BENGALURU-560053. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHAILESH G. SHANKAR, ADV.,) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.25050/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXVII/I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 (CCH-29). QUASH THE ORDER DTD 21.04.2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-29) IN O.S.NO.25050/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & 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 This petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.25050/2018 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Nanjundaradhya B.G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shailesh G.Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the gift deed dated 08.07.2014 is null and void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and for the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff produced 3 documents i.e. mortgage agreement dated 09.05.2007, mortgage agreement dated 13.01.2009 and lease deed dated 02.03.2012. The said instruments are on the stamp paper of Rs.100/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.200/-, respectively. The Trial Court, vide order dated 18.02.2021 noticed that the documents are unregistered and insufficiently stamped, proceeded to impound the documents and directed the office to calculate the duty and penalty. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff filed a memo dated 24.09.2021 seeking prayer to refer the impounded documents to the jurisdictional District Registrar for adjudication of the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable. The Trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the said prayer on the ground that the Court has already directed the office to calculate the duty and penalty. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 4. It would be useful to refer to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SEETHARAMA SHETTY Vs. MONAPPA SHETTY1 which reads as under: “21. As per the steps taken under Sections 3319, 3420, 3521, 3722, and 3923 under Chapter IV of the Act, the position in law is well-established, and axiomatic by the letter of law and precedents of this Court. However, there are a few misgivings in the sequence of its application. For the benefit of practice and procedure, we sum up the steps as follows. 21.1. Section 33 of the Act is titled examination and impounding of instruments. The object of the provision is to disable persons from withdrawing the instruments produced by them on being told that proper stamp duty and penalty should be paid. 21.1.1. The person who intends to rely on an insufficiently/improperly stamped instrument has option to submit to the scope of Section 34 of the Act, pay duty and penalty. The party also has the option to directly move an application under Section 39 of the Act before the District Registrar 1 2024 SCC Online SC 2320 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 and have the deficit stamp duty and the penalty as may be imposed collected. In either of the cases, after the deficit stamp duty and the penalty are paid, the impounding effected under Section 35 of the Act is released and the instrument available to the party for relying as evidence. In the event, a party prefers to have the document sent to the deputy commissioner for collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the Court/Every Person has no option except to send the document to the District Registrar. The caveat to the above is that, before the Court/Every Person exercises the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, the option must be exercised by a party. 21.2. Section 34 of the Act is titled instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence. This provision bars the admission of an instrument in evidence unless adequate stamp duty and the penalty are paid. Every person so authorised to collect deficit stamp duty and penalty has no discretion except to levy and collect ten times the penalty of deficit stamp duty. 21.3. Section 35 of the Act is titled admission of instrument where not to be questioned. Section 35 prohibits questioning the admission of an insufficiently stamped instrument in evidence. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 21.4. Section 37 of the Act is titled instruments impounded, how dealt with. This Section arises when the party pays the deficit duty and penalty, the Court is to impound the instrument under Section 33 of the Act and has to forward the instrument to the Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar. Subsection (2) of Section 37 of the Act deals with cases not falling under Section 34 and 36, and the person impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Deputy Commissioner. This includes the exigencies set out in paragraph 21.1.1. 21.5. Being a regulatory and remedial statute, a party who follows the regulation, and pays the stamp duty and penalty, as per Sections 34 or 39 of the Act, the legal objection emanating from Section 33 of the Act alone is effaced and the document is admitted in evidence. In other words, the objection under the Stamp Act is no more available to a contesting party. 21.6. Section 39 of the Act is titled deputy commissioner's power to stamp instruments impounded. This Section provides the procedure to be followed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar while stamping instruments that are impounded under Section 33 of the Act. As per Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, the penalty may - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 extend to ten times the stamp duty payable; however, ten times is the farthest limit which is meant only for very extreme situations. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar has discretion to levy and collect commensurate penalty. 21.7. The above steps followed and completed by paying/depositing the deficit duty and penalty would result in the instrument becoming compliant with the checklist of the Act. The finality is subject to the just exceptions envisaged by the Act addressing different contingencies. 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. 22. Reverting 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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 appellant must pay what is due, but as is decided by the District Registrar and not the Court under Section 34 of the Act.” 5. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the scheme of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’), I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in exercising the power under Section 33 of the Act, by impounding the instruments on the ground that the instruments are insufficiently stamped. Insofar as the prayer regarding referring the instruments to the District Registrar, I am of the view that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, it would be appropriate for the Trial Court to refer the aforesaid 3 documents to the jurisdictional District Registrar, with a direction to calculate the duty payable and the penalty on the said instruments in a time bound manner and secure the report. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010281782022 NC: 2026:KHC:43240 W.P. No.12670/2022 6. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.25050/2018 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. (iii) The Trial Court shall refer all the 3 impounded documents to the jurisdictional District Registrar with a direction to calculate the duty and penalty in a time bound manner and submit the report. On such receipt of the report, the Trial Court shall take further steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24