Dismissed¶¶53

Smt G v. Rukminiamma v Smt Saraswathamma

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2026WP/3661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; W.P. No.3661/2022 (GM-CPC); NC: 2026:KHC:38092; CNR: KAHC010074152022; decided 23.07.2026 by Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. Keywords: Article 227; writ of certiorari; refund of Court fee refused; deficit stamp duty Rs.17,500/-; penalty Rs.1,75,000/-; O.S.No.2004/2021; Principal Senior Civil Judge Bengaluru Rural District; withdrawal of suit; memo lacking proper provision of law; registered sale deed dated 18.12.2021; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek refund; Annexure-E.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a memo before the trial Court seeking refund of the Court fee; trial Court to consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. ¶¶53

Smt G v Rukminiamma Vs Smt Saraswathamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in O.S.No.2004/2021, refusing refund of Court fee and directing payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.17,500/- and penalty of Rs.1,75,000/-, should be quashed and the memos filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.2004/2021 allowed.

¶¶41

Court's answer

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, in view of counsel's submission and oral prayer founded on the subsequent registered sale deed executed by the defendants on 18.12.2021.

¶¶53

Ratio / Principle

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a memo before the trial Court seeking refund of the Court fee; the trial Court shall consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

¶¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff, Smt. G.V. Rukminiamma, seeking certiorari to quash the order dated 23.11.2021 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in O.S.No.2004/2021, whereby refund of Court fee was refused upon withdrawal/dismissal of the suit and the petitioner was directed to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.17,500/- and penalty of Rs.1,75,000/- (Annexure-E), and to allow the memos filed in the suit. Counsel submitted that the trial Court had permitted withdrawal and dismissed the suit but refused refund mainly because the proper provision of law was not mentioned in the memo, and that the defendants had meanwhile executed a registered sale deed on 18.12.2021; he accordingly prayed to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the trial Court afresh. The High Court (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.) dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to file a memo before the trial Court seeking refund of Court fee, which the trial Court was to consider and dispose of in accordance with law. No ruling was made on the merits of the refund/stamp-duty question.

¶1

HC-KAR

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:38092 W.P. No.3661/2022

¶3

¶4

CNR: KAHC010074152022

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3661/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. G.V. RUKMINIAMMA W/O G.V. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.791, 5TH CROSS, K M LAYOUT THAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560029.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MADHUSUDAN M, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE G.M. DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. RASHMI W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. REKHA W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶17

SRI. G.M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE G.H. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶18

SMT. SHYLAJA W/O G.M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:38092 W.P. No.3661/2022

¶22

CNR: KAHC010074152022

¶23

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. PAVITHRA W/O NAGARAJU D/O G.M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶25

SRI. PRAMOD S/O G.M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶26

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O G.K. SATISH

¶27

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶28

SRI. KIRAN S/O G.K. SATISH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶29

ALL ARE R/AT GUNJURU VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK 560087.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(R1 TO R9 ARE SERVED)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT 23.11.2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.2004/2021 REFUSED FOR REFUND OF COURT FEE AND DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO PAY DEFICIT STAMP DUTY OF RS.17,500/- AND PENALTY OF RS.1,75,000/VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND FURTHER BE PLEASED ALLOW THE MEMOS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.2004/2021 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:38092 W.P. No.3661/2022

¶37

CNR: KAHC010074152022

¶38

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

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶41

a) “ Issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dt 23.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S.No.2004/2021. Refused for refund of Court fee and directed the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.17,500/- and penalty of Rs.1,75,000/-. Vide Annexure-E and further be pleased to allow the Memos filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.2004/2021, by allowing the writ petition;

¶42

b) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶43

Sri.Madhusudan M., learned counsel for the

¶44

petitioner submits that the trial Court under the impugned order permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and the said suit was dismissed. However, it has refused to refund the Court fee mainly on the ground that proper provision

¶45

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:38092 W.P. No.3661/2022

¶48

CNR: KAHC010074152022

¶49

of law is not mentioned in the memo. Insofar as

¶50

impounding of agreement of sale is concerned, it is submitted that the defendants have later executed the registered sale deed on 18.12.2021 and in view of the subsequent event, he seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file appropriate memo before the trial Court seeking refund of the Court fees.

¶51

Said submission is placed on record.

¶52

In view of the aforesaid submission and oral

¶53

prayer, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to file a memo before the trial Court seeking refund of the Court fee and the trial Court shall consider the same and pass necessary orders on the same in accordance with law.

¶54

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶55

BSR

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Smt G v. Rukminiamma v Smt Saraswathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G v. Rukminiamma v Smt Saraswathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G Vasudev Simha Vs Sri Velu D Pethi

Sri Ganesha Sadhana Trust (R) Vs Chitradurga District Central Co. Operative Bank

Sri B L Keshavamurthy Vs Sri Syed Basheer Malik

Channabasappa. H Vs Managing Director

Channabasappa H Vs the State of Karnataka

G v Sarvamangalamma Vs G. Veeranna