Karnataka High Court
Smt. K.S. Chennamma vs Sri K.S. Maharudrappa on 2 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23642
W.P. No.12191/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.12191/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K.S. CHENNAMMA
W/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHIVANANDA COLONY
ARASIKERE TOWN-573103
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI. K.S. KALAPPA
Digitally signed S/O SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA
by RUPA V AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
Location: High RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS
Court of 3RD MAIN, NEAR VIDARTHI BHAVAN
karnataka K T J NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577001.
[SINCE DEAD, REP. BY LR'S]
2(a) SMT. SARALA GOWRI
W/O LATE KALLAPPA
AGED 58 YEARS.
2(b) SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR A.K.
S/O LATE KALLAPPA
AGED 37 YEARS.
2(c) SMT. DIVYASHREE A.K.
D/O LATE KALLAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT. NO.270
K.S.R.T.C. LAYOUT
ALANAHALLI POST
MYSURU-570028.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH M.K. ADV.,)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23642
W.P. No.12191/2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. K.S. MAHARUDRAPPA
S/O K. SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT. GEEJIHALLI THOTADAMANE
HASSAN ROAD, ARASIKERE TALUK-573103.
2. NEELAKANTAPPA
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
2(a) SMT. NIRMALA
W/O NEELAKANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2(b) SMT. RASHMI
D/O NEELAKANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
2(c) SMT. GEETHA
D/O NEELAKANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
2(d) SMT. RANJITHA
W/O NEELAKANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
SL.NO.2(a) TO 2(d) ARE
R/AT BEHIND HOYSALESHWARA COLLEGE
MARUTHINAGARA
ARASIKERE TOWN-573103.
3. SMT. HEMAVATHAMMA
W/O RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT KELLANGERE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
ARASIKERE TALUK-573103.
4. SRI. N.C. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE CHIKKANNASHETTY
AGED MAJOR
KOBBARI DODDAIHNA PALYA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23642
W.P. No.12191/2019
HC-KAR
TIPTUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-573103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1
V/O/DTD:21.11.2022 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W
R2(a) TO R2(d) AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 18.12.2018 PASSSED ON I.A. FILED UNCDER SECTION 151
OF CPC AND 38 & 40 OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT IN
O.S.NO.201/2010 BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, ARASIKERE
VIDE ANNX-F AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE 1st DEFENDANT UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AND 38
& 40 OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"1. Issue a Writ, in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2018 passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC and 38 & 40 of Karnataka Stamp Act in O.S.No.201/2010 by the II Additional civil judge, Arasikere vide Annexrue-F and consequently dismiss the application filed by the 1st defendant under Section 151 of CPC and 38 & 40 of Karnataka Stamp Act.
2. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case."-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:23642 W.P. No.12191/2019 HC-KAR
2. Sri.Girish M.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said proceedings, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Section 38 to 40 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short 'the Stamp Act'), seeking prayer to send document i.e., Ex.D86 to the Sub-Registrar, Arasikere for registration. The trial Court without considering the effect of Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, by incorrect understanding of law, directed the Sub-Registrar, Arasikere to register Ex.D86 i.e., Palu patti deed and directed to return the same. The trial Court has committed a grave error in understanding the scope and ambit of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Per contra, Sri.G.K.Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that Ex.D86 is a Palu patti deed which was produced before the trial -5- NC: 2025:KHC:23642 W.P. No.12191/2019 HC-KAR Court and there was an objection with regard to the payment of stamp duty which was made good by respondent No.1 and thereafter, an application came to be filed seeking registration of the said document. The trial Court considering the same has rightly directed the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to register the instrument of Palu patti deed i.e., Ex.D86 which does not call for interference. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushik Premkumar Mishra v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji1 and contends that there is no limitation for registration of the instrument. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record.
1 Civil Appeal No.1573/2023 dated 19.07.2024 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:23642 W.P. No.12191/2019 HC-KAR
5. The petitioners filed O.S.No.201/2010 seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The respondent No.1 defended the said suit by filing the written statement. In the said proceedings, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC and Sections 38 to 40 of the Stamp Act, seeking the direction to the Trial Court to send Ex.D86 for registration. The said application was opposed by the petitioners. The trial Court considering the rival submissions, allowed the application by directing the Sub-Registrar, Arasikere to register Ex.D86 and send this registered document to the Court. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the stamp duty and penalty was paid and within one month of paying the duty and penalty, the application for registration is moved which is within the stipulated period as per Section 40(2) of the Stamp Act. The Trial Court relied on the decision of this Court in the case of K.Amarnath v. Puttamma2 has recorded that the case on hand falls under the purview of Section 40(2) of the Stamp Act and held that when the 2 ILR 1999 KAR 4634 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:23642 W.P. No.12191/2019 HC-KAR document is relied by the party and paid duty and penalty in accordance with law, the same is required to get registered in order to get marked in the evidence and to appreciate the same on merits. In my considered view, the trail Court has committed grave error as Section 40 of the Stamp Act has no application to the case on hand. Section 41 of the Stamp Act provides endorsement of instruments on which duty has been paid under Sections 34, 39 or 40. The scope of Section 41(1) of the Stamp Act mandates that when the duty and penalty (if any) leviable in respect of any instrument have been paid, the person admitting such instrument in evidence, as the case may, shall certify by endorsement thereon that the proper duty and penalty have been levied in respect thereof. Section 41(2) of the Stamp Act provides that, every instrument so endorsed shall thereupon be admissible in the evidence, and may be registered and acted upon and authenticated as if it had been duly stamped. The said sub-section provides that once the instrument is endorsed, it shall be admissible in -8- NC: 2025:KHC:23642 W.P. No.12191/2019 HC-KAR the evidence and also be registered. However, that does not mean that every instrument where stamp duty and penalty is paid is required to be registered. The word registration referred under Section 41(2) of the Stamp Act is subject to Section 23 of the Registration Act. For easy reference, Section 23 of the Registration Act, reads as under:
"23. Time for presenting documents.
- Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution: Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final."
6. The aforesaid section makes it very clear that no document other than the Will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for the purpose to the proper officer within 4 months from the date of its execution. In other words, the limitation provided under Section 23 of the Registration Act is for 4 months for the purpose of -9- NC: 2025:KHC:23642 W.P. No.12191/2019 HC-KAR presentation of the instrument from the date of its execution. In the case on hand, the instrument at Ex.D86 is dated 05.09.1982. Though the party may have paid the stamp duty and the penalty as required under the provisions of the Stamp Act, that would not confer any right on the party to seek registration of instrument. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 referred supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as paragraph No.20.9 of the said judgment makes it clear that there is no limitation provided under the law for a sale deed which had been executed and duly presented before the Registrar for the registration, for such document to be registered within a particular time. In the said case, the presentation was done within the stipulated period from the date of its execution. In my considered view, the trial Court has misread the scope and provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act and directed the jurisdictional
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23642 W.P. No.12191/2019 HC-KAR registrar to register the instrument. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 18.12.2018 passed on application filed under Section 151 of CPC and Sections 38 to 40 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 in OS.No.201/2010 by the II Additional Civil Judge, Arasikere is hereby set aside.
iii) Consequently, the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 151 of CPC and Sections 38 to 40 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27