- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.105640 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MAHAMMADAHANEEF S/O. BABAJANSAB BANKAPUR, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O. SHIVAYOGESHWAR NAGAR, IST CROSS, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARI. SHAKUNTALA D/O. VEERAPPA UPPIN AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, NOW AT HURAKADLI BUILDING, PAGADIGALLI, NEAR VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. KUMARI. NEELAVVA D/O. VEERAPPA UPPIN AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, NOW AT: HURAKADLI BUILDING, PAGADIGALLI, NEAR VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. KUMAR. GURUPAD S/O. VEERAPPA UPPIN AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, NOW AT: HURAKADLI BUILDING, PAGADIGALLI, NEAR VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. AKKAMMA D/O. VEERAPPA UPPIN AGE: 34 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.02 13:13:36 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 NOW AT: HURAKADLI BUILDING, PAGADIGALLI, NEAR VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SMT. PUTTAVVA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA UPPIN AGE: 66 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI PRESENTLY R/AT: BANAVASI ROAD, SRIRAM COLONY, NITTUR PLOT, NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 6. MAHANTESH S/O. CHANNABASAPPA UPPIN AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, PRESENTLY R/AT: BANAVASI ROAD, SRIRAM COLONY, NITTUR PLOT, NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 7. NATARAJ S/O. CHANNABASAPPA UPPIN AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, PRESENTLY R/AT: BANAVASI ROAD, SRIRAM COLONY, NITTUR PLOT, NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 8. SMT. RENUKA NAGARAJ MESTA AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, PRESENTLY R/AT: RAMANA BAIL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 9. GEETA W/O. KUMAR SHETTAR AGE: 33 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, PRESENTLY R/AT: BANAVASI ROAD, SRIRAM COLONY, NITTUR PLOT, NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 10. KUMARI. BANGARI S/O. CHANNABASAPPA UPPIN AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, PRESENTLY R/AT: BANAVASI ROAD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 SRIRAM COLONY, NITTUR PLOT, NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 11. FAKKIRAPPA S/O. GURUPADAPPA UPPIN AGE: 82 YEARS, R/O. ALADAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI, NOW AT: HURAKADLI BUILDING, PAGADIGALLI, NEAR VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 12. BASAVANEVVA W/O. CHANNAPPA JALIHAL AGE: 79 YEARS, R/O. RAMANABAIL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 13. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJ UPPIN AGE: 57 YEARS, R/O. MUNDARAGI, HOSA ONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG. 14. VEERESH S/O. BASAVARAJ UPPIN AGE: 34 YEARS, R/O. MUNDARAGI, HOSA ONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG. 15. SHIVALEELA W/O. BASAVARAJ UPPIN AGE: 57 YEARS, R/O. MUNDARAGI, HOSA ONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG. 16. SOMASHEKAR S/O. GURUPADAPPA UPPIN AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 17. SMT. MURIGEVVA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA ANGADI AGE: 67 YEARS, R/O. SAVANUR, PATIL GALLI, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. 18. BASAVVA W/O. GANGAPPA UPPIN AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O. BEHIND RANEBENNUR COURT BUILDING, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 19. SMT. MANGALAVVA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA BELAVIGI, AGE: 34 YEARS, R/O. BEHIND RANEBENNUR COURT BUILDING, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 20. SMT. BHARATHI D/O. GANGAPPA UPPIN AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O. BEHIND RANEBENNUR COURT BUILDING, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 21. SMT. VEENA W/O. KARABASAPPA SHETTAR AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O. DODDAPETE ROAD, HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 22. SMT. ANASUYA W/O. SHANKRAPPA UPPIN AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O. RAGI HOSALLI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 23. CHANNAMMA W/O. NAGARAJ BHATT AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. RAGI HOSALLI, TQ: SIRSI DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 24. GURUPADAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA UPPIN AGE: 24 YEARS, R/O. RAMANABAIL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 25. NEELAMMA D/O. SHANKRAPPA UPPIN AGE: 20 YEARS, R/O. MUNDARAGI, HOSA ONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG. 26. CHANNAPPA S/O. GURUPADAPPA UPPIN AGE: 60 YEARS, R/O. MUNDARAGI, HOSA ONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA PRESENT VIDE ORDER DATED 06.07.2015; MR. AHMED ALI RAHIMANSHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R9; NOTICE TO R1,R3, R13 TO R16, R18 TO R24 AND R26 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R2, R4, R11 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO R10, R12, R17, R25 ARE DISPENSED WITH) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015, PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN O.S.NO.66/2013, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A 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 ORAL ORDER This petition is by the plaintiff assailing the order of the trial Court passed on I.A.No.4 which was tendered by defendant No.12 to impound the suit agreement on the ground that plaintiff during chief-examination has claimed possession over the suit property. Trial Court while entertaining the objections raised by defendant No.12 referring to the averments in chief-examination, has come to the conclusion that since plaintiff is asserting possession, the suit agreement dated 2.9.2010 which is drafted on E-stamp paper of Rs.200/- is insufficiently stamped in terms of Article 5(e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). Citing this provision, the learned Judge has proceeded to impound the document - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 and has determined the duty and penalty at Rs.2,01,630/- which is now impugned. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contesting defendants have not chosen to contest this petition. However, the learned AGA was notified and is heard in the matter. 3. The present petitioner has filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of contract by placing reliance on the agreement of sale dated 02.09.2010. This agreement is produced along with the writ petition, which is evidenced at Annexure-E. On examining the recitals in the suit agreement, this Court has noticed that defendants/owners have undertaken to conclude the transaction after securing survey and durasthi. There is a further recital indicating that possession will be handed over at the time of concluding the transaction. This recital in the agreement to sell carries a significance and therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the relevant paragraph, which reads as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 "£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀ CªÀ±Àå CqÀZÀuÉ ¸À®ÄªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ PÉÆqÀPÉƽî wjøÀĪÀzÀgÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ºÀtzÀ dgÀÆgÀvÉ §AzÀ PÁgÀt ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁlPÉÌ ºÀZÀÑ®Ä ¤ÃªÀÅ FV£À PÁ®ªÀiÁ£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV AiÉÆÃUÀå ¨É¯ÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ 3,90,101=00 ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ®PÀë vÉÆA§vÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀzÁ MAzÀ£ÀÆgÁ MAzÀÄ gÀÆ, UÀ¼ÀAvÉ RjâUÉ ¨ÉÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀzÀgÀ zsÁgÀtÂAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ M¦àAiÀiÁV F ¢ªÀ¸À ¤«ÄäAzÀ MlÄÖ Rjâ gÀPÀA 18,52,980=00 ºÀ¢£ÉAlÄ ®PÀë LªÀvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ MA¨ÉÊ£ÀÆgÁ JA§vÀÄÛ gÀÆ,UÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ gÉÆÃR 5,00,000=00 LzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ,UÀ¼À£ÀÄß F PɼÀUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¸ÀAZÀUÁgÀªÁV vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝêÉ. ¨ÁQ G½zÀ Rjâ gÀPÀA 13,52,980=00 ºÀ¢ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ®PÀë LªÀvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ MA¨ÉÊ£ÀÆgÁ JA§vÀÄÛ gÀÆ,UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀgÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß SÁvÉ zÀÄgÀ¹Û¥Àr¹ ¥ÉÇÃr ªÀiÁr¹ C¼ÀvɬÄAzÀ ºÀzÀݧ¸ÀÛ ªÀiÁr¹ £ÁªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀgÉzÁUÀ ºÁªÉÃj ¸À¨ïgÀf¸ÁÖçgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ZÀÄPÁÛ PÉÆlÄÖ ¤ªÀÄä Rjâ Rað¤AzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ Rjâ ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. CAzÉà ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä PÀ¨ÁÓPÉÌ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉ.¸ÀzÀgÀ d«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¨sÉÆÃeÁUÀ½®è, MAzÀÄ ¨sÉÆÃeÁUÀ½zÀÝ°è CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è £ÁªÉà wÃj¹ ©£ï¨sÉÆÃeÁ¢AzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÁUÀ°Ã Rjâ ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁjUÀÆ eÁ«ÄãÀ vÀjÃR §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖ®è.ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è AiÀiÁjUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsÀ¢AzÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ªÀUÉÊgÉ ªÀiÁr®è.MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ºÁUÉãÁzÀgÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ vÀªÀÄUÉ ®ÄPÁì£ÁzÀ°è D ®ÄPÁì£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä eÁåw ¤²¬ÄAzÀ ¨sÀgÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¨sÀzÀÞ ªÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀjzÉÝêÉ. £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁUÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÀ PÁ®PÉÌ MzÀV¹ Rjâ ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉ. CAvÁ £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä DvÀä ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ¢AzÀ ªÀ CPÀ¯ï ºÀĵÁj¬ÄAzÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖ ªÀĸÁj d«Ää£À Rjâ M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À», vÁjÃRÄ:¸ÀzÀgÀ" - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 4. On reading the aforesaid recitals, this Court is of the view that the provisions of Article 5(e)(i) of the Act, is not at all applicable. Even in plaint, the plaintiff has clearly asserted that possession is agreed to be delivered after securing survey and haddubastu. Merely because there is a stray claim of possession while rendering chief- examination, this Court is of the view that Article 5(e)(i) of the Act is not at all applicable. On the contrary, stamp duty has to be determined in terms of Article 5(e) (ii) of the Act. 5. Upon examining the agreement filed in the present suit, this Court has observed that it has been executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs.200/-. However, this Court further notes that the stamp duty affixed on the said agreement is not in compliance with the requirement under Article 5(e)(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable. According to the said provision, stamp duty at the rate of ten paise for every one hundred rupees of the sale consideration is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 mandated. In the present case, the agreement records a total sale consideration of Rs.18,52,980/-. Accordingly, the correct and requisite stamp duty payable on such a transaction amounts to Rs.1,853/-. 6. As there is a clear shortfall in the stamp duty paid, the agreement suffers from a deficit of Rs.1,653/- in terms of stamp duty. In view of the same, it is incumbent upon the learned Trial Judge to ascertain the precise amount of the deficit stamp duty and, thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law by imposing the appropriate penalty, as provided under the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned Judge shall ensure that the deficit duty and penalty, if any, are duly collected before proceeding further with the suit. 7. With these observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6953 WP No. 105640 of 2015 (ii) The impugned order is hereby set-aside. (iii) The learned Judge is hereby directed to re-determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty by applying the provisions of Article 5 (e) (ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB/- Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12