- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5039 WP No. 105819 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 105819 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI.SUBHASH S/O BASAPPA KANGURI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SECOND FLOOR, HILTOP RESIDENCY, OPP: GOMATESH POLYTECHNIC, GIRNAR HILLS, HINDAWADI, BELGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOURABHA.A.MIRJE., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHIVARAJ.S.BALLOLI AND SRI. RAMESH.I.ZIRALI., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SHRI.NITIN S/O NARAYAN MAJUKAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 394/8, SHUKRAWAR PETH, NEAR SWAROOP PLAZA, TILAKWADI. BELGAVI-591 102. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. BIPIN S/O NARAYAN MAJUKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 394/8, SHUKRAWAR PETH, NEAR SWAROOP PLAZA, TILAKWADI. BELGAVI-591 102. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT.PADMA W/O NARAYAN MAJUKAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5039 WP No. 105819 of 2016 R/O: 394/8, SHUKRAWAR PETH, NEAR SWAROOP PLAZA, TILAKWADI. BELGAVI-591 102. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT.ANITA D/O NARAYAN MAJUKAR, (AFTER MARRIAGE KNOWN AS ANITA W/O JAGADISH SAVANT), AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: 394/8, SHUKRAWAR PETH, NEAR SWAROOP PLAZA, TILAKWADI. BELGAVI-591 102. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. M/S. SAI POOJA CONSTRUCTIONS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM PADMA NIWAS, 2ND FLOOR, DR. R.K.MARG, 2ND CROSS, HINDAWADI, BELGAVI-591 102. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-591 102. (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7). 6. SHRI.NITIN VINAYAKRAO BHATAKHANDE PARTNER M/S SAI POOJA CONSTRUCTIONS, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PADMA NIVAS, 2ND FLOOR, DR. R.K.MARG, 2ND CROSS, HINDAWADI, BELGAVI-591 102. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-591 102. 7. SHRI.AJIT VASANT PATIL M/S SAI POOJA CONSTRUCTIONS, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PADMA NIWAS, 2ND FLOOR, DR.R.K. MARG, 2ND CROSS, HINDAWADI, BELGAVI-591 102. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-591 102. 8. PANCHAMUKHI BUILDERS C/O: M.G.JADHAV 299/6, NEW GOODSHED ROAD, BELGAUM, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5039 WP No. 105819 of 2016 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, RESPONDENTS NO.9 AND 10. 9. SHRI. KIRAN MARUTIRAO JADHAV PARTNER M/S. PANCHAMUKHI BUILDERS, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 299/6, NEW GOODSHED ROAD, BELGAVI-591 102. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 10. SHRI. MAHESH NRAYAN FAGARE PARTNER M/S. PANCHAMUKHI BUILDERS, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 299/6, NEW GOODSHED ROAD, BELGAVI. TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-591 102. …RESPONDENTS (R1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R3-DISPENSED WITH; R6-HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sourabha A. Marje, counsel on behalf of Sri. Shivraj S.Balloli., for the petitioner has appeared in person. Notice to the respondents was ordered. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 10 are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5039 WP No. 105819 of 2016 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated:06.11.2005 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Belagavi, in O.S.No.266/2008 vide Annexure-E. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these. The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of the specific performance. He furnished the agreement of sale and sought its marking. The Trial Court suo-moto, in the absence of the objections by the defendants, referred the matter to the District Registrar to determine the stamp duty and penalty. The authority having perused the recital in the suit agreement found that there was no delivery of possession, however, proceeded to determine the stamp duty under Article 5(e) (i) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and held that the proper stamp payable on the suit agreement is Rs.45,000/- and sent the report to the Trial Court. The petitioner contends that the Trial Court without affording any opportunity passed the order on 06.11.2015 and directed him - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5039 WP No. 105819 of 2016 to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.45,000/- and penalty of Rs.4,50,000/-. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. 5. Sri. Sourabha A.Mirje., counsel in presenting his arguments strangely urged that the possession was not delivered under the agreement for sale; it was agreed that the purchaser would be put into actual possession of the suit property on the execution of the Registered Sale Deed. Hence, he vehemently contended order to pay the stamp duty and penalty is untenable. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 7. The short controversy is about the direction to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the agreement for sale. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was not put in possession of the property under the agreement and it was agreed that he would be put in possession of the property in question on the execution of the Registered Sale Deed. It is significant to note - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5039 WP No. 105819 of 2016 that the District Registrar did notify the same, however, determined the duty and penalty. This is unsustainable in law. The possession is not delivered hence the determination of duty and penalty is bad in law. I may venture to say that the District Registrar and the Trial Court failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my view, the order dated 06.11.2005 passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty is liable to be quashed. 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 06.11.2005 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Belagavi, in O.S.No.266/2008 vide Annexure-E is quashed. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44