SMT ANITHA PRABHU vs SRI NARASE GOWDA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56043
WP No. 24487 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010514362024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO.24487 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANITHA PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O SRI. S.R.PRABHU,
RESIDING AT NO.417,
TH
5 CROSS, RPC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 040
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LATHASHREE D L, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DEEPAK D C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NARASE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O SIDDE GOWDA,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.8 MAIN,
RD RD
3 STAGE, 3 BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARA NAGARA,
BANGALORE – 560 079
2. SRI. M.KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
RESIDING AT SUNKADAKATTE,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE – 560 090
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56043
WP No. 24487 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010514362024
3. SRI. P. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O A.THIPPAIAH,
SALLAPURIAMMA TEMPLE,
SUNKADAKATTE,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE – 560 090
4. SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR M
S/O MR. M.MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3/1,
TH
6 CROSS ROAD,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 023
5. SRI. P. CHIKKEGOWDA,
S/O MR. PUTTALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ST
R/AT NO.1620, 1 CROSS ROAD,
ST
1 BLOCK, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU – 560 040
6. SRI. RAMDAS
S/O MR. LAKKADASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.332, 8 MAIN ROAD,
M.S. RAMAIAH LAYOUT,
T. DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU – 560 073
7. SRI. SRINIVAS P R
S/O MR. P RAMANATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1987,
NEAR AGASTHYA VIDYANEKETHAN SCHOOL,
TH
60 FEET ROAD, 28 CROSS ROAD,
TH
6 MAIN ROAD, D GROUP LAYOUT,.
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56043
WP No. 24487 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010514362024
SRIGANDHAKAVALU,
BENGALURU – 560 091
8. SMT. K. RUKMINI
W/O T.KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
9. SRI. K. KUMAR
S/O T.KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
10. SRI. K. KARTHIK
S/O T.KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
11. SRI. K. SANTHOSH
S/O MR. T KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 11
ARE RESIDING AT NO.447,
RD
3 MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI
RD
3 BLOCK, NAGENDRA BLOCK,
NEAR MENAKSHI HOSPITAL,
BENGALURU – 560 050
12. SRI. LLOYD SELVAN
S/O MR. TERANS SELVAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/A NO.1/1A, 40/40A,
S.I.I IQ ROAD, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT,
VISHWANEEDUM POST,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 091
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.G.SATHEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R8 TO R12;
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.01.2025,
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4, R6 & R7 IS DISPENSED WITH;
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.11.2025,
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56043
WP No. 24487 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010514362024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
08.07.2024 PASSED ON I.A NO.XV BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH NO.15) IN
O.S.NO.7818/2011 AT ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE
PRESENT PETITION; AND ETC
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated
08.07.2024 passed by the learned VIII Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-15) on an
application [I.A. No.XV] in O.S.No.7818/2011 [hereinafter
referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned
Order, the learned Trial Court has allowed the application
[I.A.No.XV] filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 8 to 12
[respondent Nos.5 and 8 to 12 herein] under Sections 33
and 34 read with Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as the
“Stamp Act”], holding that the Affidavit dated 24.09.1999
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56043
WP No. 24487 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010514362024
said to be executed by one N.S. Narasegowda is being
impounded as it is insufficiently stamped.
1.1. The challenge in the present petition is by the
petitioner/plaintiff.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits
that the General Power of Attorney dated 24.09.1999
[hereinafter referred to as the “GPA”] that was executed
and marked as Ex.P-2 between respondent No.1/defendant
No.1 and one S.R. Prabhu [husband of petitioner/plaintiff]
is already stamped and also sets out all terms and
conditions which are set out in the Affidavit. Reliance in
this behalf is placed on paragraph 3 of the GPA. He further
submits that the GPA provides for delivery of possession as
well.
3. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent
Nos.5 and 8 to 12, on the other hand, contends that, it is
the Affidavit that has in fact set out the delivery of
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56043
WP No. 24487 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010514362024
possession and thus the learned Trial Court had correctly
stated that, the Affidavit was also required to be stamped.
4. An examination of the Impugned Order reflects that
the document [GPA] which is executed transferring the
right, title, and interest is required to be affixed with stamp
duty. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to hold that the
Affidavit dated 24.09.1999, marked as Ex.P-3, which is
annexed to the GPA is insufficiently stamped and is liable to
be impounded.
5. This Court is unable to agree with the findings of the
learned Trial Court. Exhibit P-3 [Affidavit] is not an
independent document executed by the parties, but is an
annexure to the GPA, which is sufficiently stamped.
Therefore the Affidavit [Ex.P-3] is required to be read in
conjunction with the GPA executed in respect of the same
transaction. The GPA is executed between the same parties
and sets out the purchase of the land and conversion of the
property as well as disposal of the sites which form part of
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56043
WP No. 24487 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010514362024
the suit schedule property. The GPA is a comprehensive
document conferring upon the grantee all rights and powers
in respect of the property, including the power to dispose
of, sell, receive consideration, negotiate, and deal with the
property, as well as to obtain and deliver possession
thereof. Reference in this behalf is also made to the recitals
in Clause (3) of the GPA which is extracted below:
“3. To dispose off all or any of the schedule Sites to any
person of persons, to negotiate, to fix up the sale proceeds
and other terms for such sale, to receive and acknowledge
earnest money deposits, advance amounts etc., from such
persons, to enter into any agreement, agreements or
contracts with such purchaser/s, and on due performance
of all the terms of such agreement, and on finalisation of
full consideration by such persons, to execute proper
sale deed or deeds in favour of such respective
purchasers to present such deeds before the
competent sub-registrar’s office, and on performing
all acts to register the sale deeds and deliver the
possession of such sites to its respective purchasers
and to finalise such contracts.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
6. No doubt, Article 5(e)(i) of the Stamp Act does
reference an agreement for possession of property to be
chargeable by stamp duty, however, the document by which
the transfer took place in the present case is the GPA. It is
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56043
WP No. 24487 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010514362024
not disputed that the GPA has already been registered and
stamp duty paid thereon. Thus, directing to pay stamp duty
twice on the same transaction cannot be what is requisite
by the law.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The Impugned
Order passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. All
pending applications stand closed.
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
BMV*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
8