- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5028 WP No. 33077 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 33077 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH R., S/O. SRI. V. RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.240/1, 13TH CROSS, SARAKKI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. SURYA PRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUDDAMMA, W/O. LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, 2. SMT JAYAMMA, D/O. SMT. MUDDAMMA & SRI. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 3. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA, D/O. SMT. MUDDAMMA & SRI. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2395, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BEHIND CHAMUNDI TEMPLE, NEW KANTHARAJURS ROAD, K.G. KOPPAL, MYSURU-58047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDESWARA N.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5028 WP No. 33077 of 2019 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2019, IN O.S.NO.1058/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU, I.E., ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on the admissibility of the document in O.S.No.1058/2013 dated 15.03.2019 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, whereby the Trial Court had determined the stamp duty of Rs.4,23,200/- and penalty by 10 times of stamp duty of Rs.42,32,000/- in total the plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs.42,32,000/- plus Rs.4,23,200/- altogether an amount of Rs.46,55,200/- was directed to be paid towards stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the suit is filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.07.2005. It is submitted that the Trial Court had directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty at 8% of the market value and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire Stamp Act, 8% is nowhere - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5028 WP No. 33077 of 2019 mentioned, how the Trial Court had arrived at such conclusion is not known. It is submitted that the percentage of stamp duty to be collected and the penalty as determined by the Trial Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and he is not liable to pay, as such the order impugned needs to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submits that in fact on an I.A. that is I.A.No.5 filed by them, an order came to be passed by the Trial Court on 28.05.2018 and the matter was referred to the Deputy Registrar, Mysuru as per Section 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and determined the stamp duty and penalty under Section 39 of the Act. Thereafter, he had determined the amount and the plaintiff had failed to pay the amount, thereafter this order came to be passed. Learned counsel further submits that when such an order passed by the Deputy Registrar is not questioned by the plaintiff, as such the order impugned passed by the Trial Court holds good and no interference is called for. 4. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. On an earlier I.A. that is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5028 WP No. 33077 of 2019 I.A.No.5, when the order is passed by the Trial Court referring the matter to the Deputy Registrar, the Deputy Registrar had passed an order and that order was not questioned and thereafter, this order impugned came to be passed. The plaintiff if he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, he ought to have questioned the same, but he has not taken any steps to question the said order and now, it is contended before this Court that the percentage of stamp duty that is collected is not correct and 8% he need not pay and also raised several other grounds. In the considered opinion of this Court when the petitioner had not questioned the order that is passed by the Deputy Registrar, it is not open for him to raise any other grounds questioning the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar when a remedy is available to him. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the reasonable time is granted to pay the stamp duty and penalty as determined by the Court, he will pay the amount and the liberty may be given to him to question the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5028 WP No. 33077 of 2019 petitioner, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The petitioner/plaintiff shall pay an amount of Rs.46,55,200/- as determined by the Trial Court towards stamp duty and penalty within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off by giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Mysuru within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On all other contentions with regard to the delay and other things it is open to the defendant/respondent to raise all grounds. iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2