- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39882 WP No. 17409 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 17409 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GIRISH S S/O SWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.53, HIG J BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARSHA V, ADV.) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 2. M.N. SRIKANTAIAH S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.48, AKSHYA BHANDAR CIRCLE, NEW K ANTHARAJ URS ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009. 3. HARSHA M.R S/O RAJENDRA PRAKESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.4402/A, A J BLOCK KANAKADASANAGAR, DATTAGALLI, 3RD STAGE, MYSORE - 570 023. 4. M.N. RAKESH S/O NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.542, SANKALPA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39882 WP No. 17409 of 2021 ANIKETHANA ROAD P AND T BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE - 570 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, ADV., FOR R-1; SRI YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADV., FOR SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR R-2; V/OD/ 13.12.2023, NOTICE TO R-3 & R-4 IS D/W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE IN O.S.NO.1051/2015 AT ANNEXURE-A WHEREIN THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO PAY DEFICIT STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY OF RS.82,500/- ON UNREGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED 07.11.2011. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by defendant No.2 with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Court of III Addl. I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in O.S.No.1051/2015 wherein petitioner has been directed to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the unregistered Lease Deed dated 07.11.2011. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39882 WP No. 17409 of 2021 3. Respondent No.2 herein had filed OS No.1051/2015 before the jurisdictional Civil Court against petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 to this petition seeking the relief of possession of the suit schedule property by directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent No.2 herein that the suit schedule property was leased to defendant Nos.1 and 2 under a registered Lease Deed dated 30.05.2011 and defendant No.3 is said to be the Manager of defendant Nos.1 and 2, who has been carrying on business on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule premises. In the said suit, during the course of defence evidence, petitioner herein had produced lease deed dated 07.11.2011 which is an unregistered document. Plaintiff had opposed marking of the said document on the ground that the document was not properly stamped and it was an unregistered document. The Trial Court vide the order impugned had therefore, directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty which totally amounts to Rs.82,500/-, on the unregistered Lease deed dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39882 WP No. 17409 of 2021 07.11.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that Lease Deed dated 07.11.2011 is a continuation of the original Lease Deed dated 30.05.2011 which is a registered document. He submits that petitioner does not dispute that tenancy was created in respect of the schedule property under the original Lease Deed dated 30.05.2011. The subsequent unregistered Lease Deed dated 07.11.2011 was produced by the petitioner before the Court as a collateral document only to prove that defendant No.1 - Harsha M. R. had already retired as a partner of the firm known as M/s. Nimishamba Distributors and defendant No.3 was not working as a Manager of the said firm. He submits that since the original Lease Deed is duly stamped and registered, the Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order. He also submits that period of the lease, monthly rate payable and security deposit paid has not been altered in the subsequent Lease Deed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39882 WP No. 17409 of 2021 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/plaintiff submits that the original Lease Deed is a registered document and it is produced and marked on behalf of the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The genuineness of the subsequent Lease Deed is in dispute. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that plaintiff has approached the Trial Court contending that suit schedule property was leased to defendant Nos.1 and 2 under the registered Lease Deed dated 30.05.2011. It is not disputed that the said document has been properly stamped. The period of lease in the original Lease Deed commences from 01.06.2011 for a period of five years and even in the subsequent Lease Deed dated 07.11.2011, there is no change in the period of lease. In the original Lease Deed, monthly rent payable is Rs.35,000/-, which shall be enhanced at the rate of 4% every year and a security deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid under the original Lease Deed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. In the subsequent Lease Deed, the aforesaid payment of Rs.3,50,000/- made under the original Lease Deed is considered as a security deposit and there is no change in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39882 WP No. 17409 of 2021 rate of rent payable by the tenant. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequent Lease Deed was created after defendant No.1, who was a partner in the firm known as M/s. Nimishamba Distributors had retired from the partnership firm and except the aforesaid, there is no other change in the terms of the Lease Deed. If that is so, since the petitioner is a party to the original Lease Deed which is a registered document, the Trial Court was not justified in directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and the penalty on the unregistered Lease Deed dated 07.11.2011, which appears to be only a continuation of the original Lease Deed, which is a registered document under which according to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were put in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the subsequent Lease Deed dated 17.11.2011 which was produced by the petitioner during the course of his deposition. Under the circumstances, the following:- ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39882 WP No. 17409 of 2021 (ii) The order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Court of III Addl. I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in O.S.No.1051/2015 directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the unregistered Lease Deed dated 07.11.2011 is hereby set-aside. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35