- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6349 WP No. 102033 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.102033 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SHRISHAIL @ SHRISHAILGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA RONAD, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. KHATIJA HANCHINAMANI, H.NO.227, SAPTAGIRI NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY S.KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NAGAPPA @ NAGARAJ S/O. SHANKARAPPA SURYAVAMSHI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERAGAOAN, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581363. 2. SRI. NARAYAN S/O. SHANKARAPPA SURYAVAMSHI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERAGAOAN, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581363. 3. BASHASAB S/O. ADAMSAB HAVALADAR, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINE BAZAR, KORWAR ONI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN L.NEELOPANT AND MISS. KAVITA S.JADHAV, ADVOCATES FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19-10-2021 PASSED BY THE III ADDL SR.CJ AND Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.25 14:30:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6349 WP No. 102033 of 2022 CJM, IN OS NO.579/2014 DHARWAD PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order passed by the Court below, wherein, learned Judge has called upon the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty of ₹65,800/- and 10 times of penalty to the tune of ₹6,58,000/- on the sale agreement dated 09.12.2011. Learned Judge has also called upon the plaintiff to pay a deficit stamp duty of ₹1,000/- including penalty of ₹10,000/- on agreement dated 29.09.2014. 2. Plaintiff's counsel contends that the agreement dated 29.09.2014 relates to the same property and therefore, learned Judge could not have determined the deficit stamp duty and consequent penalty. 3. Upon a specific query posed to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff as to whether the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6349 WP No. 102033 of 2022 plaintiff is willing to relinquish reliance on the document dated 29.09.2014, it was submitted that the plaintiff intends to place reliance on both the second agreement dated 29.09.2014 as well as the earlier sale agreement dated 09.12.2011. In light of the plaintiff’s decision to rely on the second agreement, it becomes necessary to examine the adequacy of the stamp duty paid thereon. The said agreement, being dated 29.09.2014, attracts stamp duty in accordance with Article 5(e)(ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), which prescribes a rate of 10 paise for every ₹100/- of the sale consideration. The agreement records a sale consideration of ₹11,00,000/-, and therefore, the proper stamp duty payable thereon would amount to ₹1,100/-. However, the agreement is executed on a stamp paper of merely ₹100/-, thereby resulting in a deficit of ₹1,000/-. The learned Trial Judge, having rightly taken note of this deficit, has proceeded to impose a penalty of ten times the deficit stamp duty, as contemplated under the Act, thereby directing the plaintiff - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6349 WP No. 102033 of 2022 to pay a total of ₹11,000/-. This order is in consonance with the statutory mandate and does not suffer from any illegality or procedural infirmity. The determination made by the Court below is therefore fully justified and in accordance with the law. 4. With regard to the earlier sale agreement dated 09.12.2011, the petitioner has contended that the learned Trial Judge ought to have referred the document to the Deputy Commissioner for proper adjudication and determination of the requisite stamp duty and penalty, as envisaged under Section 37 of the Act. However, such contention does not merit acceptance. It is evident from the records that the learned Trial Judge has taken into account the relevant material, including the report obtained from the competent authority, while determining the stamp duty payable. 5. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, the authority of the Court to assess the deficit stamp duty and impose penalty under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6349 WP No. 102033 of 2022 Section 34 of the Act, is well-recognized. The power of the Court to impose appropriate penalty under Section 34 of the Act was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty1. The Court acts as an independent authority in assessing whether a document is properly stamped. If it is not, the Court can calculate the deficit in stamp duty, and impose the appropriate penalty (up to 10 times the shortfall), and admit the document in evidence upon payment of the same. 6. Therefore, even in the absence of a reference under Section 37 of the Act, the Court was well within its jurisdiction to make such determination. In view of this, the contention raised by the petitioner is devoid of merit and does not warrant any interference. Writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/-. Ct:vh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 1 2024 SCC OnLine 2320