##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16921 WP No. 15564 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO.15564 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. RANGAPPA @ GANGANNA, S/O SRI. BILLEYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT MUNICIPAL NO.267/13, NEW NO.13, RAJAJINAGAR 3^RD STAGE,

PRAKASHNAGAR, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560021.

LRS OF THE PETITIONER

1(a) SMT. NANJAMMA, D/O LATE RANGAPPA @ GANGANNA,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.138/D2, Digitally signed 6^TH MAIN ROAD, PRAKASH NAGAR,

by DEVIKA M BENGALURU-560021.

Location: HIGH COURT OF

1(b) SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R., KARNATAKA S/O LATE RANGAPPA @ GANGANNA,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3656/18,

GANESH RAO LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA TOWN, NELAMANGALA,

BENGALURU-562123.

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.02.2026)

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. C.G. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16921 WP No. 15564 of 2022

HC-KAR AND:

1. GANGAHONNAPPA, S/O SRI. C. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

2. GANGARAJU, S/O SRI. C. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

3. CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRA, S/O SRI. C.HONNAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

1 TO 3 RESIDING AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,

LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562162. 4. SMT. LEELAMMA,

W/O SRI. P. NARAYANAPPA, D/O SMT. GANGAMMA,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.L19, 8^TH CROSS ROAD,

LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, SRIRAMPURA,

BENGALURU-560021.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. L.S.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;

SRI. SANTHOSH S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2021, ON THE MARKING OF THE SUIT AGREEMENT I.E., THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 26.11.2014, IN O.S.NO.1679/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE I

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16921 WP No. 15564 of 2022

HC-KAR

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 2) VIDE ANNX-A AND TO DIRECT THAT THE SUIT AGREEMENT I.E., THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 26.11.2014, VIDE ANNX-D BE MARKED IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AS PW1 IN O.S. NO.1679/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY

CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 2).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

01.12.2021 passed in O.S.No.1679/2017 by the IX Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Sri P. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 26.11.2014 and in the said suit he produced the agreement in question. At that stage, the defendants raised objection for acceptance and marking of the said document on the ground that the instrument is insufficiently stamped. It is submitted that the agreement of sale is an unregistered agreement. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that he was put in possession of the property 40 years prior to the agreement and hence, the question of paying

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16921 WP No. 15564 of 2022

HC-KAR

duty and penalty as ordered by the Trial Court would not arise. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of SMT. TULASAMMA AND OTHERS v. SMT. M.S. SEETHALAKSHMI AND OTHERS, W.P.No.2200/2020 (GM-CPC) dated 22.01.2026 and seeks to

allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

3. Per contra, Sri L.S.Manjunath, the learned counsel

for respondent No.4 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has considered the agreement in question and recorded clear finding that the instrument is an unregistered document and possession is delivered on the same instrument and hence, they are liable to pay the duty and penalty as per the conveyance and on actual market value of the property and seeks to dismiss the writ

petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned c