IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 19295 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MANJULA H.M D/O LATE R. MUDDARANGAPPA, W/O THIPPESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O KODI RAMADEVARA TEMPLE STREET, KOTE, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

NERALAKERE VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. DEEPA H.C.

Digitally signed by CHANDANA W/O SRINIVASAMURTHY D B M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Location: H igh Court of RESIDING AT NO. # D-3 BLOCK, Karnataka POST OFFICE QUARTERS , BELT ROAD, SHANKARAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALORE CITY & DISTRICT - 577139.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSADURGA ON 16/08/2023 IN O.S. NO. 221/2020 AS PER VIDE ANNEXURE-E. 2) DIRECT THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSADURGA IN O.S.NO. 221/2020 TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF THE STAMP DUTY IN VIDE ANNEXURE-

D.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the defendant in O.S.221/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.08.2023, whereby the trial Court rejected the request of the petitioner to direct the respondent- plaintiff to pay duty penalty on the sale agreement dated 29.07.2020 marked as Ex.P-1 on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 29.07.2020 and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner-defendant, the trial Court posted the matter for evidence of the plaintiff, during the course of which, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the sale agreement was marked as Ex.P-1. At the stage of cross- examination of PW1, the petitioner requested the trial Court to direct the plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the said alleged sale agreement on the ground that the recitals indicate that possession of the suit schedule property were allegedly handed over by the petitioner in favour of the respondent thereby attracting stamp duty on the said document. The said submission was opposed by the respondent and culminated in the impugned order passed by the trial Court as hereunder:

“Case called out. Both advocates and PW-1 present. Advocate for the defendant submits the plaintiff has not paid proper duty on penalty on agreement of sale marked as per Ex.P1. On the other hand learned counsel for plaintiff submits duty sufficiently paid. and penalty the Heard and perused the records.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale marked as per Ex.P1. unregistered The recitals of agreement of sale makes very clear that the possession of the properties and handed over. It is submission of Advocate for the defendant that in view of provision of Article 5(e)(ii) of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 minimum stamp duty is Rs.500/-. However, the suit being one for specific performance of contract and possession is not delivered ascertaining duty on penalty on agreement of sale does not arise.

PW-1 present. Defendant's counsel prays time for cross-examination of PW-1. Time granted, subject to cost of Rs.200/-.

For cost and cross-examination of PW-1 finally.

Call on 1-9-2023.”

4. As can be seen from the impugned order, in one breath the trial Court comes to the conclusion that possession was handed over but subsequently contradicts the said finding by holding that poss