Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 78918 (KAR)

K. MANJUNATH v. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR BENGALURU

WP/20295/2025 · 2025-08-14

B M Shyam Prasad

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31498 WP No. 20295 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22089 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20295 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22089 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN) IN WP No. 20295/2025 BETWEEN: K. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O R.K.MURTHY R/AT KUMAR NURSERY NEW BANK CONONY KONANAKUNTE BENGALURU-560062 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR BENGALURU NO.4, OLD NO.623/622 3RD FLOOR, 10TH C MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 2. H.R.RAVICHANDRA, AGED 56 YEARS, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31498 WP No. 20295 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22089 of 2025 S/O LATE RAJASHEKHAR REDDY, R/AT NO.748, 18TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 3. SRIDHAR.L AGED 45 YEARS S/O K.V.LAXMAN R/AT KUMAR NURSERY NEW BANK CONONY KONANAKUNTE BENGALURU-560062 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 PASSED IN NO.G.NO.JA/STP- COURT/87/2024-25 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OPPOSED TO THE MANDATE OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957. IN WP NO. 22089/2025 BETWEEN: SRI H R RAVICHANDRA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJASHEKAR REDDY, R/AT NO.748, 18TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31498 WP No. 20295 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22089 of 2025 BENGALURU-560 095. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. R A CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MANJUNATH K AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O K.B.MURTHY, R/AT NO. KUMAR NURSERY, NEW BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 062. 2. SRI SRIDAR L AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SRI. K.B. LAKSHMAN, R/AT NO. KUMAR NURSERY, NEW BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 062. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE HONBLE LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALURU (CCH-76) TO FORTHWITH SEND THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 05.05.2008, (MARKED AS EX-P1) VIDE ANNEXURE - A IN O.S.NO.2568/2013, TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR. JAYANAGAR, FOR COLLECTION OF STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY AS PER THE DISTRICT REGISTRARS ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31498 WP No. 20295 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22089 of 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-K. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The parties to the present proceedings are before the concerned civil Court in a suit for specific performance, and the present controversy is with the District Registrar's Report dated 27.03.2025 that is forwarded to the civil Court on the stamp duty payable on the suit document viz., the Agreement for Sale dated 05.05.2008 and the right to object thereto. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No.20295/2025 is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.2568/2013, and the petitioner in W.P. No.22089/2025 is the plaintiff. The petitioner in W.P. No.20295/2025 is aggrieved by the Report as aforesaid, and the petitioner in W.P.No.22089/2025 seeks direction to the civil Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31498 WP No. 20295 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22089 of 2025 to send the document for stamping and a Certificate based on the Report impugned in the other petition. 3. The District Registrar, in the impugned Report has opined that in terms of this Court's order in W.P. No.14182/2020, which is disposed of on 03.04.2024, the plaintiff [the petitioner in W.P No.22089/2025] must pay the deficit stamp duty and the corresponding amount as penalty and that his earlier Report on payment of ten times the deficit stamp duty as penalty is contrary to this Court's order in the aforesaid direction. This Court's order reads as under: "26. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.2568/2013 is set aside and the application (I.A. No.VI) filed by the defendant No.1 is allowed in part and the plaintiff is directed to pay the stamp duty as applicable and an equivalent amount of duty - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31498 WP No. 20295 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22089 of 2025 as penalty. Upon payment of stamp duty and penalty, the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with Section 37 of the Act, 1957." The underlining is by this Court 4. Mr. S. K. Acharya, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.20295/2025, submits that this Court must interfere with the District Registrar's Report, because [a] it is without notice to this petitioner, and [b] without the power to review his earlier Report. However, the learned counsel cannot dispute that this Court's order is clear in its term and has not been called in question. If this is undisputed, the grounds urged would be in the realm of technicality, and this Court is not persuaded to opine that it should overwhelm the final decision of this Court in the said writ petition. 5. Therefore, there is no reason for interference in W. P. No.20295/2025. Insofar as the other writ petition in W.P. No.22089/2025, it would - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31498 WP No. 20295 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22089 of 2025 suffice for this Court to observe that with the afore decision, the petitioner’s application for leave to file objections to the District Registrar's Report will not survive and therefore, the civil Court, as is required in terms of this Court’s order in W.P. No.14182/2020, must take expeditious measures to ensure that the document is duly stamped with penalty and a certificate is issued. This disposal will not prejudice any remedy available under Section 38 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB