The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

09.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.209/2006 on the memo

filed by the petitioner, has filed the present writ

petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.209/2006

for the relief of specific performance of agreement of

sale dated 01.10.2003, executed by the respondent

agreeing to sell the suit shop to the petitioner. The

said sale agreement was drawn on a stamp paper of

Rs.200/-. At the time of marking the document,

4

respondent rejected the same on the ground that the

instrument was not properly stamped. The Trial Court

held that the stamp duty paid is not proper and

impounded the sale agreement. Thereafter, by order

dated 19.01.2017, the sale agreement was forwarded

to the Deputy Registrar for collection of duty and

penalty. The Deputy Registrar determined the proper

duty and penalty payable by the petitioner by order

dated 03.03.2017. Accordingly, petitioner has paid a

sum of Rs.4,59,800/- before the Deputy Registrar and

filed a memo before the Trial Court to the said effect.

The Trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the

said memo holding that the deficit stamp duty and

penalty paid by the petitioner before the Deputy

Registrar is not valid and directed the petitioner to

deposit the said amount once again before the Trial

Court. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the

Trial Court, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner has presented the agreement of

sale before the Deputy Commissioner for impounding

under Section 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The

Deputy

Commissioner

passed

an

order

and

determined

the

duty

and

penalty

payable.

Accordingly, in pursuance of the order of the Deputy

Commissioner, paid the duty and penalty. The said

document is tendered in evidence, the trial Court

directed to pay duty and penalty once again. He

submits that petitioner cannot be made to pay the

duty and penalty for second time on the same

document. He further submits that the trial Court

committed an error in passing impugned order.

Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ

petition.

6

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondents

supports the impugned order.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner tendered the agreement of

sale before the trial Court on 19.01.2017. The trial

Court directed the office to send the agreement of sale

in question to the District Registrar for collection of

stamp duty and penalty of Rs.4,59,800/- and to

submit a report along with the original document. The

trial Court has sent the original document to the

District Registrar on 07.02.2017, under section 37(2)

of the Act. In pursuance to the order of the Trial

Court, the District Registrar, Chikkaballapur issued

notice directing the petitioner to remain present on

27.02.2017 to determine the duty and penalty

payable. The District Registrar determined the duty

7

and penalty in a sum of Rs.4,59,800 /- payable vide

order dated 03.03.2017, and directed the petitioner to

pay duty and penalty by demand draft from the

schedule Bank as per Annexures 'D' and 'E'. The

petitioner paid the duty and penalty of Rs.4,59,800/-

by way of demand draft in favour of the District

Registrar, Chikkaballapura. The District Registrar

issued receipt on 29.06.2018 for having received the

duty and penalty as per Annexure-F. Section 41(1) of

the Act provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall

certify by endorsement regarding the payment made

before him on the document. Section 41 of the Stamp

Act reads as under:

"41. Endorsement of instruments on

which duty has been paid under sections

34, 39 or 40 — (1) When the duty and

penalty (if any) leviable in respect of any

instrument have been paid under section 34,

section 39 or sec