2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 50850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.27094 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. VINOD KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI K BHURALAL,
R/AT # 35, CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 051.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 .
SRI R LOKA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2 .
SMT R GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
3 .
SMT R GEETHA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
4 .
SRI R MAHENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
5 .
SRI R NANDAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2
6 .
SRI R BHASKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
7 .
SRI R RAVICHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
8 .
SMT R AMALESHWARI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
9 .
SRI R VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE SRI. K. RAJAGOPAL
EXCEPTING No.7 OF YOU BEING SON OF
SRI. ELUMALAI AND
SON-IN-LAW OF LATE SRI. K. RAJAGOPAL
ALL ARE RESIDING AT # 65, CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD
SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 051.
10 . SMT REKHA BAI
W/O MR M JASWANT RAJ MANDOT,
MAJOR, R/AT # 62,
CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 051.
11 . SRI M JASWANT RAJ MANDOT
S/O LATE SRI MANGILAL,
MAJOR, R/AT # 62,
CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 051
&.RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R-1 TO R-9
R-10 AND R-11 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATED 05.07.2017)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF
THE
CONSTITUTION
OF
INDIA
PRAYING
TO
ALLOW
THE
WRIT
PETITION
WITH
COSTS,
SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE ORDER OF XIV ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, CCH-21,
BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.25161/2017 DATED 9.6.2017 ON
IA NO.3/17 IN ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order on
IA-III/17
dated
9.6.2017
passed
in
O.S.No.25161/2017 by the IV Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH 21)
has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
The
petitioner
has
filed
a
suit
in
O.S.No.25161/2017
for
the
relief
of
specific
performance of contract alleging that respondents
No.1 to 9 have agreed to sell the immovable property
4
bearing No.61-65, old Nos.91 & 92, Chandini Chowk
Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, under the agreement
of sale dated 12.6.2016 and it was agreed for a total
consideration of Rs.2,29,50,000/- and respondents
No.1 to 9 have received a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- on
the date of agreement by way of earnest money and it
was agreed that balance to be paid within six months
from the date of agreement. The petitioner has paid
Rs.4,00,000/- to the occupants of the ground floor of
the property bearing No.63 on 18.6.2016 which was
within the knowledge of respondents No.1 to 9.
Since respondents No.1 to 9 have failed to
comply with the terms and conditions of the
agreement, the petitioner got issued a legal notice on
26.12.2016 calling upon respondents No.1 to 9 to
receive balance consideration amount and to execute
registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
5
Respondents have replied to the said legal
notice. The petitioner was constrained to file a suit for
specific performance of contract.
In the said suit, respondents No.1 to 9 filed an
application in IA III/17 seeking that the agreement to
sell dated 12.6.2016 was not made on the required
value of the stamp duty and the said document has to
be impounded.
The Trial Court after hearing both the parties has
passed an order on 9.6.2017. The Trial Court allowed
the said application partly and directed the petitioner
to impound the document relating to the valuation of
the
shop
of
property
No.63
handed
over
by
respondents No.1 to 9 in favour of the petitioner in
accordance with law.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order
has filed this writ petition.
6
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 9.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the agreement of sale came to be executed on
12.6.2016 and possession of the premises No.63 was
delivered on 18.6.2016. He further submits that on
the date of execution of the agreement to sell,
possession of the premises was not delivered. He
further submits that the petitioner had presented the
agreement to sell before the District Registrar for
Verification of Stamp Duty and the District Registrar
after considering the agreement produced has issued
a certificate under Section 41 of the Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
brevity) after receiving stamp duty and fine on
21.12.2016 and the certificate issued by the District
Registrar has been produced. Hence, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court
7
has committed an error in passing the impugned
order. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the
writ petition.
5.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents No.1 to 9 supports the impugned order.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. In order to consider the contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to
consider some of the provisions of the Karnataka
Stamp Act, 1957.
41. Endorsement of instruments on
which duty has been paid under section
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
section
40,
the
person
admitting
such
instrument
in
evidence
or
the
[Deputy
Commissioner], as the case may be, shall
certify by endorsement thereon that the proper
8
duty or, as the case may be, the proper duty
and penalty (stating the amount of each) have
been levied in respect thereof and th