Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shalini vs Sri Srinivasa on 8 September, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
®
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.14173 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHALINI
D/O SRI MUNIBACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO B-1302
VISHNAVI TERRACE APARTMENTS
J P NAGARA
BENGALURU
2. SMT MALINI
W/O M BABU
D/O G B M CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO 204, NO.26
LINK ROAD
KODIHALLI,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SRINIVASA
W/O LATE M ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2. SRI CHANNARAYA
W/O LATE M ANJANAPPA
AGE 35 YEARS
RESPONDENTS A AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT GARAKAMANTHANAPALYA BYRASANDRA VILLAGE 2 NEW THIPPASANDRA BANGALORE - 560075
3. SRI K MURALIKRISHNA S/O K VENKATESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO 3/4, 100 FEET ROAD 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 038
4. SRI K MOHAMMED WAJEED PASHA S/O LATE ABDUL KHAREEM AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO 108 WARD NO 108 GREEN HALL RESIDENCY PALACE ROAD BENGALURU
5. SRI MUNIBACHAPPA S/O LATE BHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO 416 JAGADISH NAGAR NEW THIPPASANDRA P O BANGALORE - 560 075 ...RESPONDENTS (R-1 TO R-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.09.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.8816/2003, FOUND AT ANNEXURE 'H' ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
3
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, DR. K.MANMADHA RAO, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO) The Writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.8861/2003 (Annexure-H).
2. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs 3 and 4 respectively in O.S.No.8816 of 2004 and Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Respondent 5 is the Plaintiff No.2 in the said suit.
3. The facts in brief are as follows:
Petitioners herein are the children of Smt.Chandra and Respondent No. 5. The mother of the plaintiffs, Smt. Chandra filed O.S.No.8861/2003 against Respondents 1 to 4 and Smt. Parvathamma, the mother of Respondents 1 and 2 for the specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16.03.1988 in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos 65 and 66 measuring 3 acres and 11 guntas 4 situated at Garakamanthanapalya, Byrasandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
It is the case of Smt.Chandra, the original plaintiff that the predecessor in title of Respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. Parvathamma is one Mr. Anjanappa, the brother of Smt.Chandra, who had entered into the agreement on 16.03.1988 to sell the land in question by receiving an advance of Rs.3,00,000/- and the same is acknowledged in the agreement. The Respondents 1 and 2 have also signed the agreement along with their father. It is also her case that Anjanappa had executed a power of Attorney in her favour on 21.04.1988 and delivered possession of 2 acres 11 guntas and he had to deliver possession of 01 acre within four months from the date of agreement as there was a standing crop.
Smt.Chandra had formed sites and sold under the authority of the Power of Attorney. Since the remaining one acre was to be handed over to her, she restricted her claim only to 01 acre. When the matter stood thus, Respondent No.5, by filing an application, came on record on the ground that the original Plaintiff - Smt. Chandra had gone missing. He also included the present petitioner No.1 in the said application by forging her signatures. Since the signatures were forged, the petitioner no.2 5 filed a separate application bringing to the notice of the court that the signatures are forged and so praying to engage a separate counsel. Petitioner No.2 also filed an application to come on record as plaintiff as she is also a daughter of the original plaintiff. Both the applications were allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 along with their mother Smt. Parvathamma filed written statements denying all the averments made in the plaint. Respondents in their written statement averred that Respondent No.5 and his wife Smt.Chandra had many transactions with Anjanappa, thereby gained confidence and have forged and fabricated the documents. They have also denied that Anjanappa had executed a power of attorney in favor of Smt. Chandra and the land in question does not exist as Anjanappa had formed sites and sold to different persons. Respondents 3 and 4 had also filed written statements denying the averments made in the plaint.
When the matter stood thus, the court below, on its own motion, posted the matter to hear on sufficiency of payment of stamp duty and penalty on the power of attorney. The court then directed to calculate the stamp duty and penalty, whereby the office prepared a note stating that the Petitioners are to pay 6 Rs.53,88,075/- towards stamp duty and penalty. The petitioners had filed detailed objections to the same.
After filing of objections, the court has passed the impugned order directing the Petitioners/plaintiffs to pay stamp duty and penalty of Rs.59,26,613/- on the power of attorney. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the current writ petition.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of notice, Respondents remained absent.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the power of attorney dated 21.04.1988 does not reflect the payment of consideration to the attorney and it only authorizes Respondent No.4 to form sites and sell the same and therefore, the court below has wrongly passed the impugned order by concluding that Article 41(e) of Stamp Act would be applicable.
6. It is further contended that the Power of Attorney has been executed by the brother in favour of his sister and such being the case, Article 41(eb) would be applicable, however, since the Power of Attorney was executed way back on 21.04.1988 and the Article 41(eb) came into force from 1999, in the present case, even that Article 41(eb) would not be applicable and as 7 such stamp duty can not be imposed. It is also contended that since there is no consideration on Power of Attorney executed between family members, stamp duty would not be payable and therefore, the court below has wrongly concluded without properly considering the recitals in the Power of Attorney.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard relied upon a judgment reported in Om Prakash vs Lakshminarayan and Ors reported in (2014)1 SCC 618 which reads as follows:
"11. At the time of considering the question of admissibility of document, it is the recital therein which shall govern the issue. It does not mean that the recital in the document shall be conclusive but for the purpose of admissibility it is the terms and conditions incorporated therein which shall hold the field.
8. In view of the above, in the present case, in fact the power of attorney dated 21.04.1988 was executed in favour of Smt.Chandra, the mother of the petitioners by her brother Sri.Anjanappa, the predecessor in title of the defendants 1 to 3 and the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the stamp duty has to be paid as per Article 41(eb) of the Act as there is consideration and authorization to sell the property. Admittedly, the power of attorney does not reflect the payment of 8 consideration and it only authorizes Respondent No.6 to form sites and sell the same on behalf of the Principal. Further, the power of attorney was executed by the brother in favour of the sister.
9. While on the date of execution of the power of attorney, there was no stamp duty that was payable on power of attorney executed between the family members on 21.04.1988. In fact, in 1988, there was no guideline value prescribed by the Government and the same is also specifically recorded by the Trial Court and further, there is also no consideration received for the power of attorney and the trial court failed to consider the same and imposing the stamp duty and penalty as per Article 41(eb) of the Kerala Stamp Act, i.e., is perverse and the Trial Court has to look into the recitals of the document and no external material can be looked into for the purpose of finding out the nature of the document for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Article 41(e) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 reads as under:
"Article 41(e) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, when GPA given for consideration and/or when coupled with interest and authorizing attorney to sell any immovable property, the proper stamp duty is the same duty as a conveyance (under Article 20(1)) on consideration or on market value of the property (which is the subject-matter of such power of attorney) whichever is higher."9
10. Further, it is observed that the document would be admissible on the basis of the admissions made in the document and not on the basis of the pleadings raised by the parties. In this case, the Trial Court has gone beyond the scope of the document and gone through the consideration in certain sale deeds executed during the period under which the power of attorney has been executed.
11. It would be trite to say that if in a document certain recitals are made, then the court would decide the admissibility of the document on the strength of such recitals and not otherwise. In this case, it is an absolute unregistered power of attorney for the purpose of obtaining sanctions and also for selling sites and it further indicates that there is no consideration paid under the said document and the parties say that the same is not required to be registered. Then this Court may not think that the Court would be entitled to admit the document because simply the parties say so.
12. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the ratio laid down in Om Prakash case supra, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10
13. Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.8861/2003, is hereby set aside.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-adp