SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35052

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
B P PRABHAKARA – Appellant
Versus
SRI PANDULINGA – Respondent
WP 19971/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 19971 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

B P PRABHAKARA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.308, 8TH CROSS, VENAKTESHWARA NILAYA, J.C. NAGARA, MYSURU - 570006.

(THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

…PETITIONER (BY SRI C R SUBRAMANYA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI PANDULINGA, S/O LATE JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, Digitally 2. V. KRISHNAMURTHY, signed by S/O LATE JAVARAIAH, PRAMILA G V AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, Location:

HIGH COURT RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 OF ARE RESIDING AT NARASANNA AGRAHARA, KARNATAKA NANJANGUDU CITY, MYSORE DISTRICT, PIN: 571301.

SMT. PUTTALAKSHMI SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

3. SRI D HUCHEGOWDA @ D.H.GOWDA, S/O LATE DODDAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 4. SMT POORNIMA, W/O PANDULINGA, D/O SRI HUCHEGODA @ D.H.GOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALSO AT NO.702, WARD NO.3, NARASANNA AGRAHARA, NANJANGUDU, MYSORE DISTRICT, PIN: 571301.

5. SRI UMESH H, S/O SRI HUCHEGODA @ D.H.GOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.110, 3RD MAIN ROAD, NEAR KEMPABUDHI SARAOVARA, DOBI NANJAPPA BLOCK, K.G.NAGAR, BENGALURU, PIN - 560 019.

CHIKKANNA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 6. SMT. SANTHAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 7. SMT. SHOBHA, W/O SUBBEGOWDA, D/O LATE CHIKKANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.274/12, 2ND CROSS, SARASWATHI COLONY, NANJANGUDU, MYSORE DISTRICT, PIN: 571031.

8. SRI JAVARAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 9. SMT POORNIMA, W/O LATE KARIGOWDA, D/O LATE CHIKKANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.6,8,9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.807, MUSLIM BLOCK, GOVERNMENT BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, NARASANNA AGRAHARA, NANJANGUDU, MYSORE DISTRICT, PIN: 570301.

10. SRI RAJEGOWDA, PRESIDENT, H.H.M.B.G. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., LALITHA MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE PIN:570011.

11. SMT THAHIR UNNISSA, W/O SRI ABDUL RAHEEM, NOW AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE, PIN: 570 019.

12. SRI K NAGARAJU, S/O SRI BALAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHNAGAR POST, MYSORE, PIN: 570011.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LOKESHA D.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R9)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU IN O.S.NO.682/2012 PASSED ORDER ON IA NO.15 DTD 02.03.2021 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

Defendant No.1 is before this Court in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 02.03.2021 passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.682/2012 by the Court of Senior Principal Judge and CJM at Mysuru.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Suit in O.S.No.682/2012 is filed by respondents No.1 to 9 herein seeking relief of declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 has filed his written statement in the said suit. I.A.No.15 was filed on behalf of plaintiffs under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short 'Act of 1957') read with Section 17(1)(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'Act of 1908') with a prayer to impound the documents at Ex.D.32 and D.33 and issue necessary direction to defendant No.1 to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the said documents.

4. Defendant No.1 had opposed the prayer made in I.A.No.15 by filing objection. The Trial Court vide order impugned dated 02.03.2021 has allowed I.A.No.15 filed in O.S.No.682/2012. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Ex.D.32 and D.33 are already marked in view of Section 35 of Act of 1957, the Court cannot impound the said documents and direct the party to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top