The Writ Petition challenged the marking of two documents as evidence in a civil suit, contending they were transfer deeds requiring stamp duty. The Court held the documents represented a family understanding regarding property shares and not a transfer of title, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.4357 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SRI. RAJA JAYASHANKAR SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
2
5TH CROSS, I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011
CORPORATE OFFICE OF LRS PETITIONER NO.124, RAJA GALAXY BUILDING 3 MN, 9TH BLOCK, 100 FEET ROAD J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078
AND ALSO AT RAJA MAHALAKSHMI F-2 #12, BASAPPA ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 …PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
3
RESIDING AT NO. B-702 ADARSHA GARDENS 47TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK UDAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 082
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. VENUGOPAL K. RAJU, S/O SRI. SATHYANARAYANA RAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.437 8TH 'A' CROSS, 12TH 'A' MAIN SECTOR 'A' YELANHANKA NEW T0WN BANGALURU-560 064
BENGALURU-560 052 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADV. FOR R1; SHRI. VAMSHI CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV. FOR R9; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2020-NOTICE TO R2 TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH)
4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ALLOWING MARKING OF TWO DOCUMENTS IN O.S.NO.2535/2008 ON 13.12.2019 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.NO.35) AS PER ANNEXURE-D ITEM NO.32, IN DEPOSITION OF PW1 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
One Rama Reddy and his wife Chowdamma on one side and their son Rakesh Kumar on the other entered into a Partition Deed on 15.11.2000. It appears that the parties have also entered into an agreement on 21.01.2000 as per Annexure-A whereunder, Rama Reddy and Chowdamma agreed to pay Rs.30 Lakhs to their son. In continuation with the said Agreement, Chowdamma entered into another Agreement with Rakesh Kumar on 10.04.2002 stating that Rama Reddy had passed away on 07.07.2001 without fulfilling the conditions in the agreement dated 21.01.2000, and agreed to give 50% share in the Suit Schedule Property to Rakesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar gave up his right to claim Rs.30 lakhs. The said Agreement would be in force till Chowdamma executed a document in favour of Rakesh
5
Kumar. Rakesh Kumar has filed a suit in O.S.No.2535/2008 to re-open the Partition Deed on 15.11.2000. Respondent No.6 in the suit, Raja Jayashankar, since deceased represented by his legal representatives, had purchased the property from Rama Reddy and Chowdamma. In the suit, Rakesh Kumar has sought for cancellation of the Sale Deeds also. During the course of the trial, Rakesh Kumar has sought to produce two agreements as per Annexures-A and B dated 21.01.2000. They have been marked in evidence. Hence this writ petition.
6
dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
AV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether agreements for family arrangement and sharing of property constitute transfer deeds requiring stamp duty.
Whether the lower court correctly allowed the marking of family settlement documents without stamp duty.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SHANTHA RAJA JAYASHANKAR AND ORS.
RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS.
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court