Dismissed¶8

Sri M Afroz v. Sri Venkatappa

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2026WP/8692/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: impounding of document; Section 151 CPC / Order Section 151 CPC; insufficiently stamped; unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 07.06.1983; Ex.P-1; deficit stamp duty and penalty; District Registrar reference; specific performance suit O.S.No.43/2008; IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Anekal; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ petition GM-CPC dismissed; defendant No.12(e); Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty 2024 SCC Online SC 2320; Trial Court cannot itself impose stamp penalty; expedite Registrar's report; Karnataka High Court 2026; NC: 2026:KHC:17743.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to issue a reminder to the District Registrar and secure the report as expeditiously as possible. ¶8

Sri M Afroz Vs Sri Venkatappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to issue a reminder to the District Registrar and secure the report as expeditiously as possible.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly referred the impounded, insufficiently stamped and unregistered Ex.P-1 to the District Registrar for determination of deficit stamp duty and penalty, instead of itself determining the deficit stamp duty and penalty (and whether the reference, given the suit of 2008, would cause unnecessary delay).

¶4

Court's answer

In view of the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty (2024 SCC Online SC 2320), the Trial Court was justified in referring Ex.P-1, the unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 07.06.1983, to the District Registrar for determination of deficit stamp duty and penalty.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Viewed from any angle, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court.

¶7

Key takeaways

Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2008, the Trial Court is directed to issue a reminder to the District Registrar and secure the report as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 filed by defendant No.12(e) in O.S.No.43/2008, a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, challenging the order dated 06.01.2026 of the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal allowing the plaintiff's application under Section 151 CPC to impound Ex.P-1, an unregistered and insufficiently stamped Agreement of Sale dated 07.06.1983, and to refer it to the concerned District Registrar for determination of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner contended that the Trial Court itself ought to have determined the deficit stamp duty and penalty, and that the reference would delay a 2008 suit. Relying on Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty, 2024 SCC Online SC 2320, where the Supreme Court held that upon impounding a document the Trial Court must refer it to the competent authority and cannot itself adjudicate and impose the penalty, the Court held the Trial Court was justified in making the referral; finding no error or illegality warranting interference, it dismissed the petition, directing the Trial Court to remind the District Registrar and secure the report expeditiously given the suit's vintage.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:17743 WP No. 8692 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8692 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M AFROZ S/O MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.699, 28 B MAIN ROAD CORPORATION COLONY BENGALURU-560069.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR B.N, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI VENKATAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT BESTHAMANHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562106

¶15

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶16

SRI. T. MURALI S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶17

SRI. T. GIRISH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17743 WP No. 8692 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶21

SRI. T. NEELA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶22

R2 TO R5 ARE R/AT NO. 194 LAKSHMI TALKIES BIDEREGERE ROAD, WARD NO. 7 BANGIRAMAIAH LAYOUT ANEKAL TOWN- 562107 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶23

T. REVATHI D/O LATE THIMMAIAH W/O PRATHIBAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO. 40, NEAR PILLEYAR KOYIL AAPPAVU TERUVU, PEDDURU AALANGAYAM, VANAMBADI NORTH ARCOT DISTRICT TAMILNADU 760 123.

¶24

SRI. T. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.499, 13TH MAIN ROAD MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU 560010.

¶25

SRI. T. MANJUNATH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BESTHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT- 562106.

¶26

SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17743 WP No. 8692 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

R/AT RAJHARASA ROAD BEHIND GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE

¶30

COLLEGE, V. V. EXTN., HOSKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562114.

¶31

SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O V. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT INDLAVADI VILLAGE AND POST ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562106.

¶32

SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA

¶33

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶34

R/AT 275, BEHIND COURT BUILDING DADAPPA LAYOUT, WARD NO.8 ANEKAL TOWN 562106.

¶35

SRI. B.T. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA

¶36

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶37

R/AT 82, BAHADURPURA WARD NO.23, K.S.R.T.C GARIAGE MAIN ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN 562106.

¶38

SRI. MOHAMMED

¶39

S/O LATE MASTAN SAB (DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶40

SMT. THAJUNNEESA W/O LATE MOHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS (DEAD BY HER LRS)

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17743 WP No. 8692 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

14. SMT. FAREEDA

¶44

D/O LATE MOHAMMAD W/O SANAULLA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 649, 29A MAIN ROAD C.P. COLONY, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560069.

¶45

SRI. M. FAIROZ,

¶46

S/O LATE MOHAMMAD

¶47

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT 70, DIAMOND LAYOUT THAMARASANAHALLI

¶48

BENGALURU RURAL – 562199.

¶49

SRI. FAMIDA, D/O LATE MOHAMMAD W/O SHEER ALI KHAN R/AT 52, MADDURAMMA COLONY BUS STOP TAVAREKERE BENGALURU SOUTH, DHARMARAM COLLEGE BENGALURU BENGALURU -560029.

¶50

SRI. AFROZ,

¶51

S/O MOHAMMAD

¶52

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT 669, 28TH B MAIN ROAD CORPORATION COLONY BENGALURU 560 069.

¶53

SRI. M. MOHMMAD THABREZ S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD, MAJOR

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17743 WP No. 8692 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

SRI. M. IMRAN S/O. LATE. MOHAMMAD MAJOR

¶57

SRI. M. RIZWAN S/O. LATE. MOHAMMAD MAJOR

¶58

RESPONDENT NO.18 TO 20 ARE R/AT, BEHIND COURT BUILDING ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶59

…RESPONDENTS

¶60

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 06.01.2026 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL IN OS NO. 43/2008 VIDE ANX-A AND ETC.

¶61

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

¶62

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶63

ORAL ORDER

¶64

In this writ petition, the petitioner-defendant No.12(e) has called in question the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (for short ‘Trial Court’), on an application filed by

¶65

the plaintiff under Order Section 151 of CPC, in O.S.No.43/2008, wherein the said application filed for

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:17743 WP No. 8692 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

impounding the Ex.P-1, i.e., unregistered Sale Agreement dated 07.06.1983, has been allowed.

¶69

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶70

to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit.

¶71

The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.43/2008 seeking relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale and produced an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 07.06.1983 marked as Ex.P-1. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to impound Ex.P-1 on the ground that the document was insufficiently stamped and unregistered. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, allowed the said application, impounded Ex.P-1, and referred the document to the concerned District Registrar for determination of deficit stamp duty and penalty.

¶72

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:17743 WP No. 8692 of 2026

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed by defendant No. 12(e).

¶76

The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court itself ought to have determined the deficit stamp duty and penalty instead of referring the document to the District Registrar. It is further contended that since the suit is of the year 2008, such reference would result in unnecessary delay.

¶77

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seetharama Shetty

¶78

v. Monappa Shetty , reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2320 , has held that upon impounding a document, the Trial Court is required to refer the same to the competent authority for determination of proper stamp duty and penalty, and that the Trial Court cannot itself adjudicate and impose the penalty.

¶79

In view of the aforesaid legal position, the Trial Court

¶80

is justified in referring Ex.P-1, the unregistered Agreement

¶81

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:17743 WP No. 8692 of 2026

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

of Sale dated 07.06.1983, to the District Registrar for the purpose of determination of deficit stamp duty and penalty.

¶84

Viewed from any angle, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court.

¶85

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶86

However, having regard to the fact that the suit is of

¶87

the year 2008, the Trial Court is directed to issue a reminder to the District Registrar and secure the report as expeditiously as possible.

¶88

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶89

¶90

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SRI M AFROZ S/O MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.699, 28 B MAIN ROAD, CORPORATION COLONY, BENGALURU-560069 (petitioner-defendant No.12(e))¶cause title
SUNIL KUMAR B.N
respondent
SRI VENKATAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT BESTHAMANHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562106¶cause title
respondent
SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. T. MURALI S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. T. GIRISH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. T. NEELA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
T. REVATHI D/O LATE THIMMAIAH W/O PRATHIBAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. T. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. T. MANJUNATH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. B.T. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. MOHAMMED S/O LATE MASTAN SAB (DEAD BY HIS LRS)¶cause title
respondent
SMT. THAJUNNEESA W/O LATE MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS (DEAD BY HER LRS)¶cause title
respondent
SMT. FAREEDA D/O LATE MOHAMMAD W/O SANAULLA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. M. FAIROZ S/O LATE MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS¶cause title
respondent
SRI. FAMIDA D/O LATE MOHAMMAD W/O SHEER ALI KHAN¶cause title
respondent
SRI. AFROZ S/O MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 669, 28TH B MAIN ROAD, CORPORATION COLONY, BENGALURU 560 069¶cause title
respondent
SRI. M. MOHMMAD THABREZ S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD, MAJOR¶cause title
respondent
SRI. M. IMRAN S/O. LATE. MOHAMMAD, MAJOR¶cause title
respondent
SRI. M. RIZWAN S/O. LATE. MOHAMMAD, MAJOR¶cause title

Coram

AI extract

H.T. NARENDRA PRASADauthor¶coram line

Sri M Afroz v. Sri Venkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Afroz v. Sri Venkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Savakaiah Vs Sri. Puttaswamy

Mr Shylaja Iyer Vs M/S Brookfield Technologies Private Limited

The Commissioner Vs B Z Saifulla

Sri B Vinayaka Prasanna Vs Sri. Byralingaiah S/O Hanumanthaiah Since Dead Rep by His Lrs Smt Kempamma

Sri K N Mahesh Vs Onkarappa C v

Mrs. Sunandamma P Vs M/S Gtl Infrastructure Limited