W.P.30904/13

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO. 30904/2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. H.S. RAMARAO

S/O LATE H S SUBBAR

AGE: 67 YEARS, AGRICULTURE

2. GANGABAI

W/O H S RAMARAO

AGE: 57 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD

3. SMT. SUDHA BAI

D/O H.S RAMARAO

AGE: 42 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD

4. SRI SATHYANARAYANA

S/O H.S RAMARAO

AGE: 37 YEARS, AGRICULTURE

5. SMT. BHAVANI BAI

D/O H.S RAMARAO

AGE: 34 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD

6. SHRI SRINIVAS RAO

S/O H.S RAMARAO

AGE: 32 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD

W.P.30904/13

2

7. SMT. ANANDA RAO

S/O H.S RAMARAO

AGE: 30 YEARS, AGRICULTURE

8. SMT. RAGHAVENDRA RAO

S/O H.S RAMARAO

AGE: 28 YEARS, AGRICULTURE

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NEAR PETROL BUNK

B.M. BY PASS ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN,

DIST: MYSORE – 571 105.

... PETITIONERS

(By Sri: MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADV.,)

AND

1. H.S. RAGHAVENDRA

S/O LATE SURYANARAYAN RAO

34 YEARS, DEVELOPERS

NANDIDH NILAYA, NATARAJ LAYOUT

T.B.ROAD, MAGADI TOWN

BANGALORE-23.

2. H.J SIDDALINGANAIK

S/O LATE JAVARANAYAK

MAJOR, AGRICULTURE

HANASOGE VILLAGE

CHUNCHANKATTE HOBLI

TQ: K R NAGAR, DIST: MYSORE – 570 15

... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. VIGNESHWARA U, ADV., FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER

DATED: 12.07.2013)

W.P.30904/13

3

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE

LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE [SD] HUNSUR, IN

OS.NO.2/11, DT.29.6.13, VIDE ANNX-F & DIRECT THE

TRIAL COURT, UNLESS THE REQUIRED STAMP DUTY &

PENALTY AS REQUIRED U/S.33 & SEC.35 OF STAMP

ACT PAID THE UNREGISTRED DOCUMENT CAN NOT

BE MARKED & ETC.,

THIS

WRIT

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

PRL.HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the

Apex Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna

Mishra¹, holding that the words “for any purposes whatsoever”

under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the purpose for which the

document sought to be introduced in evidence or the extent

thereof would not be relevant factor. In other words, a document

if not adequately stamped with duty, admittedly not paid, the

Court was empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 35 and

1 AIR 2009 SC 1489

W.P.30904/13

4

the plea that the document was admissible for collateral purposes

was not t enable.

2. In that view of the matter, the order dated 29-6-2013 of

the Prl..Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hunsur in O.SNo.2/2011,

rejecting the objections of the petitioners arraigned as defendants,

over admissibility of the sale agreement dated 15.09.2008 and

permitting it to be marked in evidence, is unsustainable and is

accordingly, quashed. The proceeding is remitted for fresh

consideration in the light of the aforesaid reported opinion of the

Apex Court and to pass orders in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Ia