1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION No.200598/2016 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

Srinivas S/o Late Janglappa

Age: 31 years, Occ: Agri.

R/o Yapladinni Village

Tq. & Dist. Raichur.

…Petitioner

(By Sri. Shivanand Patil, Advocate)

AND

1.

Basawaraj S/o Late Jangalappa

Age: 28 years, Occ: Agri

R/o Hoognalli Village

Tq. & Dist. Raichur

Pin Code 584112.

2.

Nadipanna @ Anjinayya

S/o Late Hanumanth

Age: 43 years, Occ: Agri

R/o Hoognalli Village

Tq. & Dist. Raichur

Pin Code 584112.

3.

Chinayya S/o Late Hanumanth

Age: 43 years, Occ: Agri

2

R/o Hoognalli Village

Tq. & Dist. Raichur

Pin Code 584112.

4.

Jaganath S/o Nakka Husainappa

Age: 33 years, Occ: Agri

R/o Yapladinni Village

Tq. & Dist. Raichur

Pin Code 584112.

5.

Smt. Buddamma W/o Rangappa

Age: 63 years, Occ: Household

R/o Yapladinni Village

Tq. & Dist. Raichur

Pin Code 584112.

6.

Nakka Husainappa S/o Nakka Thimayya

Age: 68 years, Occ: Agri

R/o Yapladinni Village

Tq. & Dist. Raichur

Pin Code 584112.

…Respondents

(By Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, Advocate for R1 to R3;

R4 to R6 held sufficient)

*********

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to issue of a writ of certiorari

or any other order of like nature and quash the impugned

order dated 09/12/2015 on IA-1 in OS No.238/2013 on the

file Hon'ble Civil Judge, Raichur as per Annexure-H to the

Writ Petition.

This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing B

Group this day, the court, made the following:

3

ORDER

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the trial

Court has called in question the order dated 09.12.2015

passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.238/2013 whereby the

application filed by the plaintiff under Sections 33, 35,

37, 40 and 41 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957

seeking for impounding of documents and sending it to

the requisite Authority has been rejected.

2.

The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking

declaration of title as regards the suit schedule property

and had filed an application seeking for impounding of

unregistered release/relinquishment deed by sending it

to the appropriate Authority for collection of stamp

duty. It is specifically averred in the affidavit filed in

support of application that the document had contained

the release/relinquishment deed, which was in the form

of 'Vibhagiya Hakkupatra' and was reduced into writing

for the purpose of proof and same was required to be

4

impounded for the purpose of payment of requisite

stamp duty and regularising said document. The trial

Court has rejected the application while observing that

there is ambiguity as to whether the document is

release deed or relinquishment deed. The trial Court has

also opined that it is not established as to whether there

is transfer of right in favour of parties under the said

document.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

Sri Shivanand Patil has contended that the plaintiff

himself had sought for impounding of the document

and impounding of a document relates to the aspect of

stamp duty under the provisions of Karnataka Stamp

Act, which has to be treated separate and distinct from

the question as to whether the document is required to

be registered. The question as to whether rights are

created under the document in terms of Section 17 of

the Registration Act and may be of relevance insofar as

5

Registration Act is concerned and the aspect of

Registration Act is to be treated separately and has

nothing to do with the collection of stamp duty after

impounding the document.

4.

Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, the learned

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would

however submit that the document, even if proved, is

required to be mandatorily registered, failing which, it

can b