Sri v Prathap Reddy Vs Sri Papanna

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29142 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. V PRATHAP REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SRI V SUBBA REDDY, R/AT KEERTHI RESIDENCY NO.92 KRISHNAPPA LANE, COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 005.

¶8

SMT. V HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O SRI. A. VENKATESHAN R/A A-706, NAGARAJUNA MEADOWS, 82, DODDABALLAPUR MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶9

SMT. V. SAROJINI DEVI Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, by SHARADAVANI W/O LATE SRI. V.C. NAIDU, B R/AT FLAT NO.401, Location: High Court ofKarnataka ANMOL PLAZA NO.57, MALLESHPALYA MAIN ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BANGALORE - 560 075.

¶10

SMT. A. RAJESHWARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O SRI A. BALI REDDY R/AT NO. 405, KEERTHI RESIDENCY KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, BELLATHUR KADUGODI BANGALORE - 560 067.

¶11

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶12

HC-KAR

¶13

SRI. R. RAMANJANEYULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SRIRAMULU REDDY, R/AT D-16, MANJUNATHA MANYATHA RESIDENCY LAYOUT, RAICHENAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶14

SRI. G. PULLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI. G. NARAYANA REDDY, R/AT NO. D15, SAI MANYATHA RESIDENCY LAYOUT, RAICHENAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶15

SMT. G MAHESHWARI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O SRI. G. PULLA REDDY, R/AT NO.D15, SAI MANYATHA RESIDENCY LAYOUT, RAICHENAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶16

SMT. K SUJATHA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS

¶17

8(A). SRI. KONA VENKATA PRASAD REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O ALTE K SUJATHAMMA RESIDING AT NO. 12-3-977-2 VIDYUTH NAGAR, ANANTAPUR ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 001.

¶18

8(B). SRI KONA MAHEEDHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE K SUJATHAMMA, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 203, GRAND KAKATIYA APARTMENT, ANANTAPUR,

¶19

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 001.

¶22

SRI. K CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS

¶23

9(A). SMT. K. BHARATHI, W/O LATE K. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶24

9(B). KUM. K. PRATHUSHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O LATE K. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY,

¶25

9(C). KUM. K. BHUMISHA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, D/O LATE K. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY,

¶26

9(D). SRI. K. VINISH REDDY AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, S/O LATE K CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. K. BHARATHI

¶27

9(A) TO 9(D) RESIDING AT NO.B3-47, 208 SFS 1ST MAIN, 4TH PHASE, NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶28

SRI. T. SURESH KUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE T. PATTABHI RAMI REDDY, R/AT NO. 1335, 11TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 086.

¶29

SRI. B. VENUGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

S/O SRI B PADMANABHA REDDY R/AT KEERTHI RESIDENCY, COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI, NO.92, KRISHNAPPA LANE, BANGALORE - 560 005.

¶33

SRI. K. SREENIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SRI K SHIVA REDDY, R/AT NO.26, SRIRAMA NILAYA, SREE RAJARAJESHWARI LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶34

ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPA HOLDER SRI T SURESH KUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE T. PATTABHI RAMI REDDY R/AT NO. 1335, 11TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 086.

¶35

…PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

SRI PAPANNA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS

¶39

SRI. RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SRI PAPANNA R/AT NO. 23/6, TCH LAYOUT ROAD, NAGAWARA BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶40

SRI. RAVI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SR. PAPANNA, R/AT NO.249, RENUKA

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

MALLAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, NAGAWARA, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶44

SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O SRI PAPANNA R/AT YELLAMMAGUDI STREET NAGAWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, A.C. POST, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶45

SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS W/O SRI PAPANNA R/AT YELLAMMAGUDI STREET NAGAWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, A.C. POST BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶46

SMT. RENUKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O SRI RAMAMURTHY RESDIINGA T NO. 23/6 TCH LAYOUT ROAD NAGAWARA, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶47

MASTER MOHAN AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS S/O SRI RAMA MURTHY RESIDING AT NO. 23/6 TCH LAYOUT ROAD, NAGAWARA BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶48

SMT. KAVITHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O SRI RAVI RESIDING AT NO. 249, RENUKA MALLAMMA TEMPLE ROAD NAGAWARA, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶49

SRI VARUN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

S/O SRI RAVI RESIDING AT NO. 249 RENUKA MALLAMAM TEMPLE ROAD NAGAWARA, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶53

MS. CHERIKA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS D/O SRI RAVI RESIDING AT NO. 249 RNUKA MALLAMMA TEMPLE ROAD NAGAWARA, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶54

SRI GURU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT YELLAMMAGUDI STREET NAGAWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, A.C. POST BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶55

MS. ARPITHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O SRI UMASHANKAR SINCE MINOR ERPESENTEDBY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN VIZ SRI UMASHANKAR R/AT YELLAMMAGUDI STREET NAGAWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, A.C. POST BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶56

M/S. FOYER CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE T PENT HOUSE CASA DI MODA APTS NO. 38, GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT MUNNEKOLALA, BANGALORE - 560 037 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

SRI. VISHWANATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI M RAJU R/AT NO. 52, 2ND MAIN JAIDHARSHINI LAYOUT RMV 2ND STAGE BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶60

SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATESHAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 386 NAGAWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI A.C. POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶61

SMT. K PADMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O LATE KAPILAPPA RESIDING AT TCH COLLEGE ROAD NAGAWARA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶62

SMT. RAMSHA G MAJOR HUSBAND S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS AT C/O SREE SHAKTHI PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS NO. 646/8, 2ND FLOOR, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALURU.

¶63

SMT. K ARCHANA MAJOR HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS AT C/O SREE SHAKTHI PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS, NO. 646/8 2ND FLOOR, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶67

SMT. M.L. HAMSAVATHI MAJOR HUSBAND S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS AT C/O SREE SHAKTHI PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS NO. 646/8, 2ND FLOOR DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶68

SMT. USHA MAJOR HUSBAND S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS AT C/O SRE SHAKTHI PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS, NO. 646/8 2ND FLOOR, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶69

SREE SHAKTHI PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS (R) A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 527, GROUND FLOOR 11TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080 AND ALSO AT NO. 43 MARUTHI HBCS LAYOUT 16TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 040 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. D.R. VIJAYASARATHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE B.S. RUDRAPPA.

¶70

…RESPONDENTS

¶71

(BY SRI. R.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R13 AND R15; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 NOTICE TO R1 TO R12 AND R14 TO R20 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶72

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DTD 28.08.24 AND 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H.5) IN O.S.NO 2495/2013 ON I.A.NO. FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NOS. 13 AND 15 UNDER SECTION 33 AND 34 OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT (I.E. ANNEXURE-A AND A1) AND TO CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A. FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS NOS. 13 AND 15 IN THE HONBLE TRIAL COURT UNDER SECTION 33 AND 34 OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT (I.E. ANNEXURE-A AND A1) AND ETC.,

¶75

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶76

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶77

ORAL ORDER

¶78

This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2495/2013 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated 28.08.2024, whereby the application filed by respondent Nos.13 and 15/defendant Nos.13 and 15 under Sections 33 and 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act was allowed by the trial Court which directed the petitioners to pay a deficit stamp duty and 10 times penalty on the document styled as 'Full and Final Settlement agreement' dated 05.12.2003 and document styled as 'Memorandum of Understanding' dated 18.03.2009 by impounding both the documents.

¶79

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 and 15 and perused the material on record.

¶82

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, the respondents/defendants having contested the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim. During the course of which, the petitioners sought to mark several documents in their evidence out of which, the documents were sought to be impounded at the instance of the defendant Nos.13 and 15 viz., 'Full and Final Settlement agreement' dated 05.12.2003 and document styled as 'Memorandum of Understanding' dated 18.03.2009 by filing the instant application. The petitioners/plaintiffs contested the said application filed by the respondents under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act inter alia contending that the stamp duty paid on the said documents was sufficient and proper. After hearing the parties, the trial court directed

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

impounding of the said documents by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

¶87

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims inasmuch as while the petitioners/plaintiffs contend that the aforesaid two documents had been sufficiently and properly stamped, defendant Nos.13 and 15 would contend that the same were not properly stamped and the trial Court was justified in directing impounding of the said documents, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has not rendered any finding as regards to the provision in the schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act under which the said document was required to be stamped, which is a precondition before directing impounding of the documents.

¶88

In this context, it is relevant to extract the findings of the trial Court, which are as under:

¶89

" REASONS

¶90

This suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of the contract and totally 8 issues were framed and 1 additional issues was framed. When the case was posted for plaintiff arguments the plaintiff filed an application along with the document

¶91

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

to restore the stage for further chief of PW1 to mark the documents.

¶94

The contention of the defendants No.13 and 15 is that, these documents are filed by the plaintiff to mark on his behalf through PW1 and these documents are in the safe custody of the court and in full and final settlement agreement dated 15.12.2003 and huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs involved and it is unregistered document executed on non judicial stamp paper of Rs.200/- and memorandum of understanding dated 18.03.2009 and also involving huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs executed in unregistered document on non judicial stamp paper of Rs.200/- and acknowledgment dated 25.06.2009 for a receipt of amount of Rs.40 lakhs which is unregistered document executed on white paper.

¶95

While perusing the full and final settlement dated 15.12.2003 it was executed by Sri.Papanna and others in favour of Sri.Shakthi Promoters and Developers and as per the agreement clause No.6 it is mentioned as :

¶96

“ In consideration of the first party giving of the alleged rights over the schedule land and co-operating in formation of the layout therein, the 2nd party has agreed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.20 lakhs besides three sites of 30 x 40 feet each in size free of cost to the first party” and also the 2nd party has paid the said amount as mentioned in the clause No.7 page No.5 of the agreement and this agreement was executed upon the unregistered stamp paper having value of Rs.10/- stamp paper which has to be and also the 2nd party has paid the said amount as mentioned in the clause No.7 page No.5 of the agreement and this agreement was executed upon the unregistered stamp paper having value of Rs.10/- stamp paper which has to be

¶97

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

impounded to pay stamp duty and penalty as this document is also permitted with the present suit and plaint schedule property. Hence, this document has to be impounded.

¶100

While perusing the memorandum of understanding dated 18.03.2009 executed between Sri.Shakthi Promoters and Developers in favour of Papanna and others pertaining to Sy.No.79 of Nagavara village, Kasaba Hobli. In clause NO.2 of the agreement it is mentioned that,

¶101

“2. The parties having accepted this settlement the first party has this day paid to the 2nd party the sum of Rs.30 lakhs by cash as part payment of the additional compensation.

¶102

3. The balance of Rs.20 lakhs payable to us additional compensation shall be paid by the first party within 3 months from the date of this MOU.”

¶103

This MOU also executed upon Rs.200/- stamp paper and it is unregistered. These documents are well connected with the present suit and plaint schedule property for which the plaintiff has to pay the duty and penalty. Hence, this document also to be impounded.

¶104

The acknowledgment dated 25.06.2009 is already covered under above two documents hence, this acknowledgment is not necessary to impound to pay duty and penalty. Hence, the above point is answered in the PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and proceed to pass the following :

¶105

ORDER

¶106

The application filed by defendants No.13 & 15 under section 33, 34 of the

¶107

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

Karnataka Stamp Act read with section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby partly allowed.

¶110

The Full and Final Settlement agreement dated 15.12.2003 executed between Sri.Papanna and 3 others in favour of Sri.Shakthi Promoters and Developers and another document Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.03.2009 executed between Sri.Shakthi Promoters and Developers in favour of Sri.Papanna and 4 others are hereby impounded.

¶111

Office is hereby directed to calculate the stamp duty and penalty upon the above two documents and endorse the same.

¶112

No order as to cost."

¶113

As can be seen from the reasons assigned by the

¶114

trial Court, there is no specific finding as to under which provision or the schedule of the Karnataka Stamp Act, that the deficit stamp duty was liable to be paid on the said documents.

¶115

Under these circumstances, in the absence of any finding as to the category/description or provision/schedule under which the aforesaid two documents fall under the Stamp Act for the purpose of quantifying/calculating the stamp duty, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the trial Court

¶116

15 -

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:10585 WP No. 29142 of 2024

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, by leaving open all contentions.

¶120

In the result, the following:

¶121

ORDER

¶122

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶123

ii) Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.2495/2013 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is hereby is set aside.

¶124

iii) Matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the application filed by respondent Nos.13 and 15 under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act afresh and to pass appropriate orders after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both parties and in accordance with law.

¶125

iv) The trial Court is directed to reconsider the aforesaid application filed by defendant Nos.13 and 15 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from 26.02.2026.

¶126