IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

W.P.NO.101246/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

1.

POORNACHANDRA TEJASVI E.M.,

SON OF ERAPPA MALAGLAI, AGED 36 YEARS,

HINDU, HOUSE NO.48, 34^TH WARD,

DEVANG PET, HOSAPETE OF

BALLARI DISTRICT-583201.

2.

MR.BALAGANGADAR TILAK

SON OF ERAPPA MALAGALI,

AGED 33 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE NO.48,

34^TH WARD, DEVANG PET,

HOSAPETE OF BALLARI DISTRICT-583201.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADV.)

AND :

SMT.VISHALAKSHI WIFE OF SHANKAR GOUDA,

AGED 44 YEARS, HINDU, AR-1 BLOCK,

PLOT NO.39 & 40, RESIDENT OF 22^ND WARD,

VINAYAKA NAGAR BADAVANE, (HUDA LAY OUT),

HOSAPETE-583201 OF BALLARI DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE

COURT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE

LEARNED PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE

DATED 12.02.2021 IN O.S.NO.32/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

: ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs

challenging the order passed by the Court below

wherein the Court has imposed 10 times penalty on the

suit agreement dated 27.03.2019.

2.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

The

present

petitioner

has

instituted

a

suit

claiming refund of sum of Rs.6,10,506/-. It is stated in

the plaint that the present petitioner entered into an

agreement

to

sell

with

respondent-defendant.

Accordingly an agreement came to be executed on

27.03.2019 and the sale consideration was fixed at

Rs.26,50,000/- and the present petitioner paid a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- by way of Cheque bearing No.315232.

3.

The grievance of the petitioner before this

Court is that the respondent-defendant having entered

into an agreement did not furnish the title deeds and

therefore

the

bank

opined

that

loan

cannot

be

3

sanctioned loan unless title deeds are produced and

therefore the present petitioner is compelled to file the

present suit seeking refund of earnest money of

Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24%

per annum. Hence, there is a claim for a sum of

Rs.6,10,506/-.

4.

Learned judge has impounded the document

since the suit agreement was written on a stamp paper

of Rs.500/-. Learned Judge invoking the provisions of

Article

5(e)(ii)

of

the

Karnataka

Stamp

Act,

has

calculated

the

stamp

duty

payable

on

the

suit

agreement

at

the

rate

of

0.10%

on

the

sale

consideration of Rs.26,50,000/-. The learned Judge was

of the view that the same works out to Rs.2,150/- by

imposing 10 times penalty, the learned judge has

determined the penalty at Rs.21,500/-. By impugned

order, learned judge has held that the suit agreement

dated 27.03.2019 would be admissible in evidence

subject to payment of deficit stamp duty at Rs.2,150/-

and penalty of Rs.21,500/-.

4

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently argue and contend before this Court

that, the order passed by he learned judge is palpably

erroneous. He would submit to this Court that the

present suit is instituted and the suit agreement is

relied on by the petitioners-plaintiffs for collateral

purpose. He would submit to this Court that since the

documents are relied for collateral purpose, question of

paying deficit stamp duty and consequent penalty in the

present case on hand would not arise.

6.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and examined the order under challenge.

7.

On examination of material on record, this

Court is of the view that the arguments canvassed by

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in

the present case on hand, the suit agreement which is

relied on cannot be subjected to provisions of Article 5

(e)(ii)