Plaintiff challenged the trial court's refusal to reduce a ten-fold penalty levied on an inadequately stamped sale agreement. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Gangappa v. Fakkirappa, the High Court held the impounding authority has no discretion to reduce penalty and dismissed 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.7333 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER: SMT. N. ANURADHA W/O. M. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.309, 3RD CROSS 2ND STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT NEAR 15F BUS STOP BANGALORE-560 078.
(BY SRI H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:20789 WP No. 7333 of 2024
…RESPONDENTS
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER 04.01.2024 PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1956 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN O.S.NO.1814/2013 ON THE FILE OF COURT IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
"That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to minimize the penalty equivalent to the stamp duty instead of penalty of 10 times levied on duty in the interest of justice and equity."
have minimized the penalty to be imposed on the document. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff be allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:20789 WP No. 7333 of 2024
Court in the case of Gangappa and Another vs. Fakkirappa reported in 2019(1) Kar. L.R 321 (SC). Paragraph nos.17 and 18 of the judgment reads as under:
"17. In the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court relied by the High Court in Digambar Warty and others (supra) , after noticing the provisions of Section 33 and 34 the Division Bench laid down following in paragraph 36:
"36. This provision refers to the power of the Civil Court which admits the documents in evidence. The main Section is couched in the negative. Unless the instrument is duly stamped, it is inadmissible in evidence. As an exception, the proviso provides for payment of duty and penalty. In the matter of collection of duty and penalty no discretion is vested with the authority admitting such an instrument in evidence. The duty payable on the instrument is prescribed by statute. Therefore, there is no question of any discretion being vested with the authority impounding the document in the matter of collecting the duty. Once the duty payable is ascertained from the statute, no discretion is vested with the authority admitting the document in evidence, in the matter of imposition of duty and penalty. The word used
NC: 2024:KHC:20789 WP No. 7333 of 2024
in the said proviso is 'shall'. It is mandatory. However, Section 35 makes it clear, that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence without there being objection at the time of admitting the said instrument in evidence, then such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 58, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Section 58 deals with the power of the Appellate Court to review the finding recorded by the original Court under Section 34 of the Act, either suo motu or on the application of the Deputy Commissioner. Section 36 of the Act deals with admission of improperly stamped instrument. The State Government may make rules providing that, where an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description, it may, on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, be certified to be duly stamped, and any instrument so certified shall then be deemed to have been duly stamped as from the date of its execution."
others (supra) has rightly interpreted the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Act. We, thus, are of the view that the High Court in the impugned judgment did not commit any error in relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in Digambar Warty and others (supra) . We thus has to uphold the above view expressed in the impugned judgment."
hkh.
Sd/JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court has discretion to reduce the penalty imposed on an inadequately stamped document under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act to an amount equivalent to the stamp duty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gangappa and Another vs. FakkirappaRelied on¶6
2019(1) Kar. L.R 321 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Chennamma
Smt. R. Jessimani
Sri T.P. Ananda
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
