IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 4326 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. NUTAN AJITH KUMAR W/O SRI AJITH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A GIRNAR, NO.2744/IA D-16, 3RD MAIN, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570002.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. MEGHA SUNIL, ADV., FOR SRI G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADV.)

AND:

REGIONAL SOCIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST NO.3622/2, 1ST CROSS UMAR KHAYAM ROAD TILAK ROAD, MYSORE - 570 021 Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NANDINI M S JANAB SYED MOHAMMD KAMARAN.

Location:

HIGH COURT …RESPONDENT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI KRISHNAMOORTHY D, ADV.)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.602/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MYSORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B GORUP', THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the order dated 27.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.602/2018 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Mysore, produced at Annexure-A.

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.13,11,068/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eleven Thousand and Sixty Eight only) as duty and penalty on the lease deed dated 28.01.2017.

c) Pass such any other order/s or relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, to serve the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Respondent herein had filed O.S.No.602/2018 before the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru, for specific performance of the contract and also directing the defendant/petitioner to execute the lease deed for the agreed period of 30 years as per the agreement of lease dated 28.01.2017 by a decree of specific performance of the contract. 4. During the course of trial in the said suit, certified copy of the lease agreement dated 28.01.2017 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant was produced by PW-1. The Trial Court having found that the aforesaid document was not properly stamped, had passed the order impugned dated 27.08.2019 directing the respondent-plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.9,35,000/- as duty and penalty to get the aforesaid document marked before the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner who is the defendant in O.S.No.602/2018 is before this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the lease is for a period of 30 years and the monthly rent payable under the lease deed is Rs.75,000/-. In the lease deed, there is a provision to enhance the monthly rent at the rate of 5% every year, and therefore, the average rent payable per year comes to Rs.20,39,600/-. In addition to the same, under the lease deed, security deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid by the respondent. Therefore, as provided under Article 30 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, stamp duty payable was at the rate of 3% on Rs.40,39,600/- (Rs.20,00,000/- security deposit + Rs.20,39,600 being the average rent payable). According to her, the stamp duty payable on the aforesaid amount was Rs.1,21,188/-. She submits that the Trial Court ought to have directed payment of deficit stamp duty accordingly with ten times penalty.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is liable to pay stamp duty only on the average rent payable per year and not on the security deposit which is refundable in nature. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of CHIEF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, INSPECTOR GEN