Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
Smt. Gayathri W/O Shivanna - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Jayamma W/O Late Ramaiah - Respondent
Writ Petition No.3005 Of 2019 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 30-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADV.
For the Respondent: SRI. C.M. RAGHUNATH, ADV., SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATE, AGA
The trial Court cannot delegate the calculation of stamp duty and penalty once it has been determined, as per the Karnataka Stamp Act provisions.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Section 37(2) - Application filed for impounding document and calculating duty and penalty - Trial Court allowed application to refer to District Registrar for recalculation of duty which was already determined - Court held that the delegation of power to calculate duty post determination is impermissible - Ultimately upheld trial Court's direction to calculate duty and penalty - No error found in the assessment made by the District Registrar. (Paras 1-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to quash orders allowing recalculation of stamp duty and penalty after a prior calculation had been done - The trial Court had initially determined duty at Rs.2,18,900/- and allowed a referral to the District Registrar upon request by the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that referral for further calculation was justified based on provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act and noted prior conflicting opinions regarding such delegation - The decision passed by the trial Court was upheld.
Issues: The primary issue was whether a trial Court can delegate the calculation of duty after having already calculated the same, pursuant to an application under Section 37(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that under Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, once the trial Court has determined the amount due, it should not delegate further calculations to the District Registrar unless specifically required under law. The obligation lies with the Civil Court to impound the document and determine the penalty as prescribed.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court's error in recalculating stamp duty. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondent's grounds for necessity of recalculation. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's consideration of arguments and evidence. (Para 4) |
| 4. details on previous court orders and their implications. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's analysis on conditions for sending documents. (Para 7) |
| 6. affirmation of trial court's decision. (Para 8) |
| 7. final ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER : VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs :
"1) Quash the order dated 3.10.2018 passed by the learned XII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.8970/2011, as per Annexure-H, 2) Quash the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by
2nd Respondent District Registrar & Deputy Commissioner of Stamps. Rajaji Nagar Registration District, Banglore, vide order No.DRI 207/2018-19 dated 31.10.2018 as per Annexure-J,
3) Direct the trial court to impound the document-GPA and impose duty and penalty of Rs.2,18,000/- as per Annexure-E".
2. Sri.Gururaj Kulkarani, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff under Section 37(2) of the KARNATAKA STAMP ACT , 1957 (for short, 'The Act'). It is submitted that the trial Court has already impounded the original agreement of sale and GPA and directed the office to calculate the duty and penalty and they have calculated it at Rs.2,18,900/-. Once the duty and penalty is calculated, there cannot be any direction to respondent No.2 to recalculate the duty and penalty, which is impermissible. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has now calculated the duty and penalty at Rs.35,000/-, which is impermissible, as the trial Court ought not to have referred the matter to respondent No.2 for calculation of deficit stamp duty & penalty once it has carried out the said exercise. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Black Pearl Hotels (Pvt) Ltd. v. M/s.Planet M.Retail Ltd., 2017 (3) AKR 19 and the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sri.C.S.Mahesh vs. Sri.Nagaprasad Srinivasan and another , WP No.44078-44079/2016 disposed of on 09.10.2018. He seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orders and by directing the respondent No.1 to pay Stamp duty of Rs.2,18,000/- as calculated by the trial Court.
3. Per contra, C.M.Raghunath, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned orders and submits that the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Section 37(2) of the Act seeking to refer the sale agreement to the District Registrar to collect stamp duty on the said document as the respondent-plaintiff is a widow and it is extremely difficult for her to pay the amount calculated by the trial Court. It is submitted that now the respondent No.2 has calculated the amount and the said amount is paid. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned AGA for respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties. 5. The respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.8970/2011 seeking declaration that petitioner No.1 has undertaken unlawful construction to an extent of 10ft X 2ft on the respondent No.1's suit schedule properties in northern set back area and other reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act seeking to impound the agreement of sale and GPA both dated 27.02.1997 for collection of stamp duty and penalty of 10 times of the duty. The trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 24.01.2017. The trial Court impounded the afores
