- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32837 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJANASA SRIKANTA PATIL S/O. SRIKANTA PATIL, AGED 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.420, 4TH BLOCK, 41ST MAIN, H.B.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 084 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAJ D S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SHIVAJI NAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT, NO. 122/22, 4TH FLOOR, MONARK CHAMBER, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BANASAVADI, NO. 740/2, BMP NO. 25, 9TH B MAIN ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B. AGA.,) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 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 APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL LETTER BEARING NO. 530/2025-26 DATED 08.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 ALONG WITH CALCULATION AFFIXED THERETO WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for Respondents No.1 to 3. 2. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned official letter bearing No. 530/2025-26 dated 08.10.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2 along with calculation affixed thereto with respect to the schedule property vide ANNEXURE - A; b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the official respondents to register the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner with reference to the valuation of the property as per the Sale Vide ANNEXURE-B Agreement dated 18.02.1998 within a period of fifteen (15) days and furnish the original registered Sale Deed to the petitioners forthwith. c) Pass any other order/s or direction/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the facts and circumstances - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 of the case including costs in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale with the owner of the premises on 18.02.1998 for a consideration of Rs. 5,05,051/-, out of which the Petitioner had made a payment of Rs. 4,05,051/-, and possession of the property had been delivered to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, being required to make payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the execution of the registration of the sale deed, made a payment of a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- and thereafter called upon the owner of the premises to execute a sale deed by receiving the balance consideration. The original vendor having expired, his legal heirs not acceding to the said request, the petitioner had filed a suit in OS No.15008/2002 seeking for specific performance of the said agreement of sale. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 23.11.2018 decreed the said suit. In - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 furtherance of which, the petitioner filed execution proceedings in EP No.25307/2023 for execution of the judgment decree passed in OS No.15008/2002. In pursuance of which that a Court Commissioner was appointed and thereafter, the sale deed was sought to be registered with the jurisdiction Sub- Registrar's office. At that time, Respondent No.3 Sub-Registrar by its letter dated 08.10.2025 intimated the petitioner that the current market value of the property was Rs.2,52,67,749/- and as a stamp duty of Rs.14,14,994/- and registration fee of Rs.5,05,355/- totalling to Rs.19,20,349/- is required to be paid for the purpose of registration. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a sale agreement having been entered into way back in the year 1998, most of the consideration has been paid at the time of execution - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 of the agreement of sale. It is only on account of the expiry of the vendor, and the legal heirs refusing to execute the sale deed that the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in OS No.15008/2002. The decree for specific performance passed in the suit not having been complied with execution proceedings in EP No.25307/2023 was filed. In pursuance of which the registration of a sale deed was directed to be carried out by the Court Commissioner. Thus, from the year 1998 till the year 2025, the petitioner has been prosecuting the matter. The petitioner being the purchaser required to make payment of stamp duty. The petitioner cannot be mulked with the increase in the valuation of the property when the transaction value itself was only Rs.5,05,051/- and in this regard he relies on a decision of the Court in the case of Smt.Munisanjeevamma and others vs. the State of Karnataka and others1 more particularly 1 WP No.49527/2016 dated 04.08.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 Paras 20, 21 and 23 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “20. That apart as indicated Supra after the dismissal of the RFA No.1721 of 2005, if the petitioner had filed Execution Proceedings and in the Execution Proceedings sale deed was executed in favor of the petitioners, again the petitioners would not be required to make payment of stamp duty and market registration fee on the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the sale deed. 21. In my considered opinion, the distinction sought to be made out by the respondent is without a difference in as much as by virtue of execution of sale deed, what is sought to be done is to give effect to the decree dated 12.09.2005 in OS No.759 of 1995 and RFA No.1721 of 2005. 23. Looked at from any angle, the vendor having acted malafide the petitioner being entitled to the enforcement of the judgment decree dated 12.09.2005 as confirmed in RFA No.1721 of 2005, I am of the considered opinion that merely because Sri.Khader Mohiddin came forward to execute a sale date in favour of the petitioners would not require the petitioner to make payment of the stamp duty and registration fee as per the market value on the date of presentation of the said sale date. The benefit which would be available as regards sale deed executed and registered in the course of Execution Proceedings would equally apply to a sale date voluntarily executed by judgment debtor in favour of the decree holder…..” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 5. Learned AGA would however seek to submit that it is the value of the property as on the date on which the sale deed is sought to be registered that is required to be considered for the purpose of determining the stamp duty and registration fee. 6. Though the agreement of sale was executed on 18.02.1998, the sale deed is proposed to be registered in October 2025 and as such, the petitioner having received the benefit of the enhancement of the value of the property would be required to make payment of the stamp duty and registration fee as on the date of registration. 7. His further submission is that the agreement of sale dated 18.02.1998 was an unregistered document and therefore, the same cannot be believed and as such the valuation as on the date of registration of sale is required to be taken into consideration. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 8. Heard Sri.Jayaraj D.S., learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri.Ravindranath B, learned AGA for Respondents No.1 to 3 and perused papers. 9. The issue in the present matter has been decided by me in an earlier judgment dated 04.08.2025 in W.P.No.49527/2026 and I have categorically come to a conclusion that when a sale deed is executed in furtherance of decree for specific performance, after contest, the stamp duty liable to be paid would not be the stamp value of the property as on the date on which the document was presented for registration, but would be the value of the property as shown in the agreement. The said finding would equally apply to the present matter. 10. As regards the contention of learned AGA, that the valuation has increased, would not have any bearing inasmuch as the petitioner has made payment of substantial amount of the monies way back in the year 1998 and the money equivalent value of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 same if were to be taken into consideration, the petitioner having paid the said monies cannot now be asked to pay the incremental value as stamp duty as regards which he has already made payment of the sale consideration. 11. 11. As regards the other contention of learned AGA that the agreement of sale dated 18.2.1998 is unregistered, the same would have been relevant if a proceeding had been initiated must subsequently and or that there was a compromise between the parties thereby throwing up some suspicion on the transactions. In the present matter, the agreement of sale being executed on 18.02.1998, suit has been filed in OS No.15008/2002, which has been in the public domain, a decree has been passed therein on 23.11.2018, execution proceedings have been filed in EP No.25307/2023, I am of the considered opinion that all these actions have taken place in the public domain and there can be no suspicion which can be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44378 WP No. 32837 of 2025 cast on the said transaction merely because the agreement of sale dated 18.02.1998 is not registered. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) A certiorari is issued, the communication bearing No.530/2025-26 dated 08.10.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.2 along with the calculation made therein at Annexure-A is quashed. iii) A mandamus is issued directing the Respondents to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner as per the valuation shown in the agreement dated 18.02.1998. iv) Needless to say, the Petitioner would be bound to make payment of stamp duty and registration fee on the agreement of sale dated 18.02.1998 as per the valuation shown therein. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18