Disposed¶61

Mukesh Kumar Nahar v. Mr. Bikam Chand

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/25075/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), W.P. No.25075/2022 (GM-CPC), decided 06.04.2026 by Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. Keywords: Karnataka Stamp Act 1957; Section 33 impounding power exercised before document tendered in evidence; proviso to Section 34 - duty plus ten times penalty for admission in evidence; Article 5(e)(ii) versus Article 5(j) stamp duty on agreement of sale; insufficient stamping (Rs.500/- paid against consideration Rs.80,00,000/-, part payment Rs.48,78,860/-); impounding order on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.41/2021 upheld; reference to District Registrar for duty and penalty; ILR 2020 KAR 5156 (Shri. S. Suresh) distinguished as turning on Rule 82 Civil Rules of Practice; writ disposed under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of upholding the order on I.A.No.4; no relief to the petitioner; no order as to costs.

Mukesh Kumar Nahar Vs Mr. Bikam Chand — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of upholding the order on I.A.No.4; no relief to the petitioner; no order as to costs.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court could impound the agreement of sale dated 12.08.2014 under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act before the document was tendered in evidence, and refer it for calculation of duty and penalty. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Section 33 of the Act permits impounding by any person authorised by law or by consent of the parties, or a public officer (except a police officer), of any instrument produced or coming before him in performance of his functions, irrespective of whether the document is sought to be produced as evidence; accordingly the contention that impounding arises only when the document is tendered in evidence is rejected.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Under the proviso to Section 34 of the Act, when a document is insufficiently stamped the duty shall be paid along with ten times penalty in order to admit the said document as evidence.

¶54

Key takeaways

Having regard to Article 5(e)(ii) of the Act, the stamp duty of Rs.500/- paid on the agreement of sale dated 12.08.2014 (recording total consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- and part payment of Rs.48,78,860/-) was admittedly insufficient.ratio¶46
The jurisdictional Court's finding that the instrument is insufficiently stamped and its reference of the matter to the District Registrar of Stamps and Registration to calculate the stamp duty and penalty is after correct appreciation of law and does not call for any interference.ratio¶56
The decision in Shri. S. Suresh (ILR 2020 KAR 5156), being mainly in the context of Rule 82 of the Civil Rules of Practice and its specific facts, would not aid; the language employed in Section 33 of the Act makes very clear the power of the Court to impound the instrument even before the evidence is recorded.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.04.2022 on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.41/2021 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpura), by which the Trial Court, acting under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, impounded an agreement of sale dated 12.08.2014 bearing stamp duty of Rs.500/- against a recorded total consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- (part payment Rs.48,78,860/-) and referred it to the District Registrar of Stamps and Registration for calculation of duty and penalty. Held: (i) under Section 33, an instrument may be impounded by a person authorised by law or consent of parties, or a public officer (except a police officer), when it is produced or comes in performance of his functions, irrespective of whether it is sought to be tendered in evidence; (ii) under the proviso to Section 34, an insufficiently stamped document is admissible in evidence only on payment of the duty plus ten times penalty; (iii) having regard to Article 5(e)(ii), the duty paid was admittedly insufficient; (iv) the decision in Shri. S. Suresh v Shri L. Pothe Gowda and Others (ILR 2020 KAR 5156), being mainly in the context of Rule 82 of the Civil Rules of Practice and its specific facts, would not aid, since Section 33 permits impounding even before evidence is recorded. The writ petition was disposed of upholding the order on I.A.No.4; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18356 W.P. .No.25075/2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.25075/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

MUKESH KUMAR NAHAR S/O RIKAB CHAND NAHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT JAIN GANESH JEWELLARS B.M. ROAD, SAKALESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.

¶10

(BY SRI. PRATEEP K.C. ADV.,)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR. BIKAM CHAND S/O MR. PARASMAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.39, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS OPP. GANESH BHAVAN HOTEL HANUMANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560019.

¶14

SANTHOSH KUMAR NAHAR S/O MOHANLAL NAHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT JAIN ALANKAR JEWELLARS B M ROAD, SAKALESHAPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.

¶15

MR. DINESH KUMAR NAHAR S/O MOHANLAL NAHAR

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18356 W.P. .No.25075/2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A JAIN ALANKAR JEWELLARS B M ROAD, SAKALESHAPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.

¶19

T. JAWAHARLAL S/O T. VANARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A JAIN MILAN TEXTILES B M ROAD, SAKALESHAPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MANU SHANKAR S.S. AND SRI. C.R. PAVAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1 R2 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.04.2022 IN OS.NO.41/2021 ON I.A.NO. 4 FILED UNDER SECTION 33, 34 OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SAKALESHAPURA (ANNEXURE- D) & ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

CAV JUDGMENT

¶26

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

¶27

04.04.2022 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.41/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpura (for short, 'the Trial Court').

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18356 W.P. .No.25075/2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Sri.Pradeep.K.C, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and others have filed

¶31

a suit in O.S.No.41/2021 for recovery of money with interest. In the said suit, the defendant filed an application to impound the sale agreement dated 12.08.2014 on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped.

¶32

The Trial Court allowed the said application by impounding the said agreement and directed the District Registrar to calculate the duty and penalty. It is submitted that the question of impounding of the document would arise if the document is tendered in the evidence and before the document is tendered in the evidence, the duty payable and penalty would not arise. It is further submitted that the agreement of sale does not evidence the transfer of possession. It was agreed to transfer at the time of registration of sale deed and the registration is not mandatory. As per Article 5(j) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), the stamp duty payable is Rs.200/- yet Rs.500/- is paid. However, the Trial Court

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18356 W.P. .No.25075/2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

has not considered any of these aspects. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Shri.S.Suresh v Shri L.Pothe Gowda and Others.¹ Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra , Sri.Manushankar S.S, learned

¶37

counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the agreement of sale dated 12.08.2014 is admittedly on the stamp paper of Rs.500/- which is insufficient. Hence, an application is filed to impound the document which has been rightly impounded by the Trial Court and the instrument has been referred to the District Registrar for calculation of the stamp duty and penalty. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶38

1 ILR 2020 KAR 5156

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18356 W.P. .No.25075/2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶42

The petitioner and 3 others have filed a suit in O.S.No.41/2021 before the Trial Court, for judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.68,94,540/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the plaint till the realisation of the amount. In the said suit, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.4 under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, seeking to impound the agreement of sale dated 12.08.2014 and to order the plaintiffs to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty. The said application was opposed by the petitioner contending that the impounding of the document would not arise at this stage until it is tendered in the evidence and duly paid is correct. Further, it is averred that the possession is with the defendant and hence, the registration of the agreement of sale is not mandatory and the stamp duty paid is as per Article 5(j) of

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18356 W.P. .No.25075/2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the Act. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, allowed the application by recording a finding that the stamp duty is insufficiently paid and directed the District Registrar of Stamps and Registration to calculate the stamp duty and penalty.

¶46

It is to be noticed that the agreement of sale dated 12.08.2014 is produced in the suit and the stamp duty of Rs.500/- is paid on the said agreement. The agreement of sale refers the total sale consideration as Rs.80,00,000/- and also the payment of Rs.48,78,860/- as part payment. Considering Article 5(e)(ii) of the Act, the stamp duty leviable would be 10p. for every Rs.100/- or part thereof on the market value equal to the amount of consideration subject to maximum of Rs.20,000/- but not less than Rs.500/-. In the case on hand, admittedly, the stamp duty paid is Rs.500/- which is insufficient. Section 33 of the Act empowers every person having by law or consent of the parties authority to receive evidence and every person in-charge of public office before whom any

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18356 W.P. .No.25075/2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in performance of his function, shall if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped impound the same.

¶50

The contention of the petitioner that the

¶51

document has to be impounded only when it is sought to be produced as evidence, is required to be rejected as Section 33 of the Act makes it very clear that the document can be impounded by any person authorised by law or with consent of the parties or by a public officer, except a police officer, any document that is produced or 'comes in performance of his function' . Hence, the document can be impounded by the authorised person even if the documents comes in the performance of his function, irrespective of the fact as to whether the said document is sought to be produced as evidence or not. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes it clear that when a document is insufficiently stamped, then the duty

¶52

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18356 W.P. .No.25075/2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

shall be paid along with ten times penalty in order to admit the said document as evidence.

¶55

In the case on hand, the jurisdictional Court,

¶56

after considering the contentions and agreement in question, has formed the opinion that the instrument is insufficiently stamped and referred the matter to the District Registrar of Stamps and Registration to calculate the stamp duty and penalty. Hence, the aforesaid finding of the Court is after correct appreciation of law and does not call for any interference.

¶57

Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the decision of SHRI.S.SURESH referred supra is concerned, it is noticed that the said case was mainly in the context of Rule 82 of the Civil Rules of Practice and the specific facts of the said case; and language employed in Section 33 of the Act makes it very clear with regard to the power of Court to impound the instrument even before the evidence is

¶58