- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 37014 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N MANJUNATHA S/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. SMT. SAVITHA K W/O N.MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/ AT LAKSHMAN NAGAR, SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, HEGGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI N KUMAR S/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.32/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 056 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.N.G.SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN OS NO.7141/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-2) AND(A) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE FORM OF WRIT QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.7141/2016 BY THE I ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-2) ON MEMO FILED ARDUNT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03.02.2025 AT ANNEXURE-E FOR REFERRING THE DOCUMENTS TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF STAMPS NAGARABHAVI, IN RESPECT OF CALCULATION OF PAYMENT AND PENALTY AND STAMP DUTY REGARDING 1 TO 7 LEASE AGREEMENTS UNDER ANNEXURE-A, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed on the memo dated 03.02.2025 filed by the petitioners-defendants, whereby the trial Court directed the petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the documents produced by the petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners-defendants for declaration, possession, injunction etc., in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 being contested by the petitioners-defendants. After completion of plaintiff’s evidence, the petitioners’-defendants’ commenced evidence, during the course of which, the petitioners produced 12 documents comprising of rent agreements etc. The plaintiff opposed/objected to the same on the ground that the said documents being insufficiently stamped were inadmissible in evidence. Under these circumstances, the petitioners-defendants filed a memo seeking impounding of the documents and referring the same to the registration/stamp authorities for adjudication of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The respondent-plaintiff filed objections to the said memo interalia detailing the deficit stamp duty payable on the said 12 documents produced by the petitioners. By the impugned order, the trial Court proceeded to direct the documents to be impounded and directed the petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the said documents as per Rules. Aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioners-defendants are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has taken into account the details of the documents and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 has directed petitioners to pay duty and penalty as per rules. The impugned order passed by the trial Court reads as under: ORDER ON MEMO DATED 03.02.2025 Advocate for defendants filed memo stating that defendants have produced 10 rental agreements before this Court the marking of which is objected by plaintiff on the ground of non-payment of proper stamp duty on the said documents. Hence, prayed to refer said documents to the District Registrar of Stamps at Nagarabhavi to pay the proper stamp duty regarding following documents : 1. Rent agreement dated 22.02.2010 between K. Raju and another V/s N. Manjunath (Plaintiff herein). 2. Rent agreement dated 01.12.2010 between: N. Manjunath (Plaintiff) V/s S. K Manjunath. 3. Rent agreement dated: 22.01.2011 between N. Manjunath (Plaintiff) V/s C. C Prasanna. 4. Rent agreement dated: 21.10.2016 between N. Manjunath and Savitha K V/s Smt. Farhanakhan. 5. Rent agreement dated: 12.07.2019 between. Smt. Savitha K V/s Farhanakhan. 6. Factory Shed Rent agreement dated; 19.10.2023 between N. Manjunath and Savitha K V/s Smt. Farhanakhan. 7. Shop rent agreement dated 10.06.2024 between N. Manjunath and Savitha K V/s Smt. Farhanakhan. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 2. Advocate for plaintiff filed objections to the memo contending that the stamp duty payable by defendants on production of following lease agreements as per Article 30 (1) (ii) of Schedule to The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Sl. No. Description of the document Date of the Instrument Stamp duty paid in INR Total amount of annual rent + advance amount in INR Stamp duty payable as per Article 30 (1) (ii) of The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 in INR Deficit stamp duty payable in INR 01 Lease agreement for commercial shed 01.12.2010 50/- 66,000/- 330/- 280/- 02 Lease agreement for shop premises 22.02.2010 100/- 2,96,000/- 1,480/- 1,380/- 03 Lease agreement for shop premises 22.01.2011 100/- 3,11,600/- 1,558/- 1,458/- 04 Lease agreement for shop premises 21.10.2016 100/- 2,08,000/- 1,040/- 940/- 05 Lease agreement for shop premises 12.07.2019 100/- 2,43,760/- 1,218/- 1,118/- 06 Lease agreement for shop premises 21.08.2018 100/- 2,30,680/- 1,153/- 1,153/- 07 Lease agreement for shop premises 12.07.2019 100/- 3,32,000/- 1,660/- 1,560/- 08 Lease agreement for shop premises 11.06.2020 100/- 2,58,136/- 1,290/- 1,190/- 09 Lease agreement for shop premises 04.08.2021 100/- 2,73,940/- 1,370/- 1,270/- 10 Lease agreement for shop premises 11.05.2022 100/- 2,91,340/- 1,456/- 1,356/- 11 Lease agreement for shop premises 19.10.2023 100/- 4,10,468/- 2,052/- 1,952/- 12 Lease agreement for shop premises 10.06.2024 500/- 4,31,600/- 2,158/- 1,658/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 The above said documents are insufficiently stamped and hence are liable to be impounded by the Court and same are not admissible in evidence unless the sufficient duty & penalty is paid. Hence, prayed to reject the memo. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Learned counsel for defendants argued that defendants are ready to pay duty & penalty as per Rules if the Court refer said documents to the District Registrar of Stamps. Advocate for plaintiff argued that once the documents are produced before the Court without approaching the District Registrar of Stamps, then the course open to the Court is to impound said documents and party concerned is liable to pay duty & penalty as per law. Once the documents are produced before the Court, the Court cannot refer the documents to the District Registrar of Stamps. But the Court has to collect duty & penalty of 10 times. Advocate for plaintiff relied upon the ruling of The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2013 KAR 2099 (Digambar Warty & Ors., v. District Registrar, Bengaluru Urban District & Anr.). Learned counsel for defendants relied upon the ruling of The Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2024 SC 5327 (Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty). I have gone through the rulings relied upon by the parties. 4. On perusal of memo filed by advocate for defendants and submission made by learned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 advocate for defendants, undisputedly documents produced before the Court are not properly stamped. Said documents are insufficiently stamped. In this regard, The Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2024 SC 5327 (Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty) has held thus: 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 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. As per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid ruling, the party can directly approach the District Registrar under Section 39 of the Stamp Act, for payment of deficit stamp duty & penalty. The impounding effected under Section 35 of the Stamp Act is released. In the event, party prefers to have sent the documents to the Deputy - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 Registrar before collecting deficit stamp duty & penalty, the Court or the person has no option except to send the document to the District Registrar. But, the same should be before the Court or the person exercises jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Stamp Act. In this case, defendants have filed the present memo when marking of said documents was opposed by opposite side. As such, defendants have not exercised the option before producing said documents before the Court. Hence, at this stage, the Court cannot refer said documents to District Registrar and defendants are liable to pay duty & penalty applicable on the documents. 5. Under the circumstances, memo filed by defendants is rejected. 6. Defendants are directed to pay duty & penalty on the said documents as per Rules.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the deficit stamp duty and 10 times penalty on all the 12 documents detailed in the impugned order subject to the condition that liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioners to seek refund of the penalty in excess of Rs.5 paid by the petitioners on the said documents in terms of Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Learned counsel for the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 respondent submits that in the event the petitioners pay duty and 10 times penalty, the respondent does not have any objection for marking the said documents and for liberty being reserved in favour of the petitioners to seek refund under Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual circumstances and joint submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition without interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions in this regard. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) Petitioners are directed to pay deficit stamp duty as detailed in the paragraph No.2 of the impugned order together with 10 times penalty on the next date of hearing before the trial Court or any other date to be fixed by the trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 iii) Upon the petitioners paying the deficit stamp duty and 10 times penalty on the aforesaid 12 documents as stated supra, the trial Court is directed to mark the said documents as Exhibits on behalf of the petitioners subject to leaving open all other contentions regarding admissibility, proof, relevance, probative value etc., which shall be decided by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. iv) In pursuance of the petitioners paying the said duty, deficient stamp duty and 10 times penalty, the liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to approach the competent/appropriate authorities to seek refund of penalty in excess of Rs.5 paid on all the 12 documents by the petitioners. v) In the event, the petitioners make such a request for refund in terms of Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, the concerned competent/appropriate authorities shall determine the penalty payable by the petitioners in excess of Rs.5 in terms of Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4539 WP No. 37014 of 2025 pass appropriate orders on request for refund and determine the amount refundable to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19