- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6432 WP No. 116154 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 116154 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. IRAPPA KELAGERI AGED: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREBAGEWADI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. I.Y.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. RAMA S/O. SHRIKANT CHAUGULE AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL, R/O: HALAGA-BASTAWAD, CHOUGALA GALLI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590020. 2. SHRI. RAJU S/O. SHRIKANT CHAUGULE AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL, R/O: HALAGA-BASTAWAD, CHOUGALA GALLI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590020. …RESPONDENTS ( RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/10/2018 AND CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.1383/2015 I.E., ANNEXURE-"G" BY MODFYING AND PERMITTING THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE DEFICIT STAMP DUTY OF RS.880/- ON UNREGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT DATED 14.04.1999 I.E, ANNEXURE-"D" AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.23 14:21:05 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6432 WP No. 116154 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff assailing the impugned order dated 26.10.2018 and subsequent order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the trial court calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on three agreements dated 14.04.1999 vide Annexure-D, 19.01.1993 vide Annexure-E and 27.03.1996 vide Annexure-F. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the suit agreement, which is evidenced at Annexure-D would bring to the notice of this court that defendant executed agreement to sell vide Annexure-D agreeing to sell his undivided share to an extent of 1 acre bearing Sy.No.66/3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this court that through oversight the agreements executed by defendant’s brother namely, Ashok D. Chougle relating to remaining portion which are not subject matter of the present suit are also produced and this has led to impounding of the documents. He would point out that in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6432 WP No. 116154 of 2019 the present suit, it is only 1 acre of land in Sy.No.66/3 held by the defendant Shrikant D.Chougle is the subject matter of the suit, while the other two agreements are not subject matter of the present suit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This court given its anxious consideration to all the three agreements evidenced at Annexures-D, E and F. 4. Upon a thorough examination of the agreements placed on record, this Court finds merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A close scrutiny of the material reveals that the agreements marked as Annexures-E and F do not form the subject matter of the present suit in O.S.No.1383/2015. The pleadings and reliefs sought in the suit make it abundantly clear that the plaintiff does not seek to enforce the said agreements. Moreover, it is evident that the sale transaction in relation to the property concerned has already culminated in the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, rendering the other two - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6432 WP No. 116154 of 2019 agreements irrelevant to the current adjudication. Therefore, it appears that Annexures-E and F were inadvertently produced along with the plaint, and their presence on record does not in any manner advance the plaintiff’s case nor form the basis of the reliefs claimed. In such circumstances, the impounding of Annexures-E and F, which are neither relied upon nor are they central to the dispute in the present suit, is unwarranted. The action of impounding these documents and the subsequent imposition of penalty and determination of deficit stamp duty in respect thereof is thus liable to be quashed. However, in so far as the agreement marked as Annexure-D is concerned, it is specifically relied upon by the plaintiff and forms the basis of the claim in the suit. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court was justified in impounding the said agreement and determining the requisite stamp duty and penalty thereon. The petitioner shall accordingly deposit the additional stamp duty and penalty as determined in relation to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6432 WP No. 116154 of 2019 Annexure-D. With these findings, this Court proceeds to pass the following order: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order is partially modified. iii) The petitioner/plaintiff shall deposit the deficit stamp duty and penalty levied on the suit agreement dated 14.04.1999 vide Annexure-D. Insofar as deficit stamp duty and penalty determined over suit agreements vide Annexures-F and E are hereby set aside. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10