IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 16248 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

HASSAN DIST STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, SITUATED IN FRONT OF GANDADA KOTI, R.C.ROAD, HASSAN, 573201, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT B.J.BOREGOWDA SECRETARY SMT. PALLAVI.D …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. K M KUMUDINI W/O. M.N. PARAMASHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O HOUSING NO. 786, SAMPIGE ROAD, K.R. PURAM, HASSAN -573 201

2. ABHIJITH P MERVE, S/O M N PARAMASHIVAPPA, Digitally signed by CHANDANA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, B M R/O HOUSING NO. 786, Location: H igh SAMPIGE ROAD, K.R. PURAM, Court of Karnataka HASSAN 573 201

3. AKSHATHA P MEREVE D/O M N PARAMASHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O G803, NCC MADOWS 2, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU 560063.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H..,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ANNEXURE -F IE., ORDER DATED 11.04.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT HASSAN IN O. S 191/2020.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.191/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan, whereby the trial Court directed the Agreement dated 12.03.2018 and Joint Development Agreement dated 14.06.2017 to be referred to the District Registrar to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty.

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

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties.

4. The said suit having been contested by the respondents-defendants, when the matter was set down for evidence, in addition to other documents, the petitioner-plaintiff also produced Agreement dated 12.03.2018 and Development Agreement dated 14.06.2017, at which stage, the trial Court passed an order 08.11.2024 directing impounding of the Agreement dated 12.03.2018 and directed the petitioner-plaintiff to pay duty and penalty, in all a sum of Rs.5,71,615/-.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.31603/2024, which was allowed and disposed of as hereunder:

“This petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan in O.S.No.191/2020, whereby the agreement dated 12.03.2018 is impounded under the Stamps Act, directing the office to collect the stamp duty and penalty totally in a sum of Rs.5,71,615/-. Aggrieved by that order, petitioner is before this Court.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance. The Court has taken suo-motu proceedings for impounding the agreement dated 12.03.2018 relied upon by the plaintiff and impounded the documents and calculated that the plaintiff has to pay stamp duty of Rs.52,475/- and penalty in total plaintiff has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,71,615/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of judgment of Apex Court in Shakeel Pasha and Ors. Vs. M/s City Max Hotels India Pvt. Ltd in Civil Appeal No.2139-2040/2024 disposed on 12.01.2024 and judgment of this Court in W.P.No.102296/2022 disposed on 09.08.2024, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to calculate the stamp duty and collect the penalty of impounding documents. Under the Stamp Act, it is the District Registrar who has to determine the stamp duty. Further, the principles of law laid down by Apex Court in the above referred judgments