Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
Sri. K.N. Shivaprakash, S/o. Sri. K.V. Narayanasa and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sri. K.N. Maruthi, S/o. Sri. K.V. Narayanasa and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.41091 of 2018 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 03-07-2025
For the Petitioners: Sri. Manohar B.K. Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. A. Anil Kumar Shetty, Adv.
A family meeting proceedings document may be impounded and subject to stamp duty if it clearly extinguishes rights, thus functioning as a release deed under the Karnataka Stamp Act.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Section 33 - Writ petition challenging the impounding of a family meeting proceedings document and the imposition of stamp duty and penalty - The document, deemed a release deed by the Trial Court, was found to extinguish rights of one party and confirm rights of another (Para 6).
(B) The Trial Court's conclusion on the nature of the document and duty obligation was affirmed, rejecting the applicability of petitioner’s arguments regarding execution of further documents (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought partition and mandatory injunction regarding family property while the respondents sought to impound a family meeting document, asserting that it constitutes a release affecting property rights.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's determination that the document was insufficiently stamped and should be impounded was upheld.
Issues: The main issues revolved around whether the family meeting proceedings constituted a deed requiring stamp duty and penalty and the interpretation of that document's legal effect on rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the document, as presented, indicates extinguishment of rights and therefore falls under the remit of the Karnataka Stamp Act, necessitating payment of stamp duty and penalty.
Result: The writ petition is devoid of merits and rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the impounding of exhibit p24 (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. support for the validity of exhibit p24 (Para 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on document's nature (Para 5) |
| 4. determination on payment of stamp duty and penalty (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion on the merits of the writ petition (Para 7) |
ORDER :
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.)
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.2884/2017 by the XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.Manohar B.K., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction against the respondents in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The respondents filed an application after the evidence of PW-1 and after marking of the documents from Exs.P1 to P24 seeking to impound Ex.P24. It is submitted that Ex.P24 is a meeting proceedings of the family members with regard to the item No.1 of the suit schedule property. However, the Trial Court, without considering the objections and without appreciating that Ex.P24 is neither a conveyance nor a release deed, has impounded the said exhibit and directed the petitioner to pay the duty and penalty of Rs.11,000/-. It is further submitted that pursuant to Ex.P24, neither any sale deed was executed nor the petitioner received any consideration. Hence, treating the said document as a release deed, the Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty which is incorrect. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.A.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order and submits that Ex.P24 extinguishes the right of one party and creates right in favour of another party in respect of property. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly impounded the document and directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty. It is submitted that the Trial Court has held that Ex.P24 is inadmissible until the requisite stamp duty and the penalty is paid and the said order is required to be challenged under Section 58 of the KARNATAKA STAMP ACT , 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is further submitted that if the petitioner does not intend to rely on Ex.P24 even then, he is liable to pay the duty and penalty. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS Vs. P.GUNAVATHY , [MANU/KA/2107/2012]. He seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides.
6. The petitioner filed O.S.No.2884/2017 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 1/8th share in item No.2 of the suit schedule property and for a decree of mandatory injunction against the respondents with regard to item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The respondents filed written statement. PW-1 has been examined and certain documents were marked. Ex.P24 is marked by the petitioner. The respondents filed an application under Section 33 of the Act seeking to impound Ex.P24 and further prayer to direct the petitioner to pay the penalty and stamp duty. The said application was opposed by the petitioner stating that Ex.P24 is neither a document required to be stamped nor a compulsorily registerable instrument. It is only a meeting proceedings of the meeting held on 26.04.2005. It is contended by the petitioner that the said document neither confers any right nor conveys the right in favour of the petitioner. The Trial Court, considering the contentions held that the instrument is insufficiently stamped and impounded the same by directing the petitioner to pay the st
