- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7245 WP No. 19277 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 19277 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA H. M, D/O LATE R MUDDARANGAPPA W/O THIPPESH AGED 47 YEARS R/O KODI RAMADEVRA TEMPLE STREET KOTE HOSADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527 PRESENTLY R/AT : NERALAKERE VILLAGE TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577228 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY C.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. ROOPA M.C. W/O SHANKAR A. A AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NEAR SRI ANJANEYA TEMPLE HULIYARU CIRCLE HOSADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSADURGA ON 16.08.2023 IN O.S.NO.217/2020 AS PER VIDE ANNEXURE-E WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND PENALTYDIRECT THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSADURGA IN O.S.NO.217/2020 TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE IN Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7245 WP No. 19277 of 2023 RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF THE STAMP DUTY IN VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B - GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.217/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.08.2023, whereby the trial Court rejected the request of the petitioner to direct the respondent- plaintiff to pay duty penalty on the sale agreement dated 29.07.2020 marked as Ex.P-1 on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 29.07.2020 and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner-defendant, the trial Court posted the matter for evidence of the plaintiff, during the course of which, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the sale - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7245 WP No. 19277 of 2023 agreement was marked as Ex.P-1. At the stage of cross- examination of PW1, the petitioner requested the trial Court to direct the plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the said alleged sale agreement on the ground that the recitals indicate that possession of the suit schedule property were allegedly handed over by the petitioner in favour of the respondent thereby attracting stamp duty on the said document. The said submission was opposed by the respondent and culminated in the impugned order passed by the trial Court as hereunder: “Case called out. Both advocates and PW-1 present. Advocate for the defendant submits the plaintiff has not paid proper duty on penalty on agreement of sale marked as per Ex.P1. On the other hand learned counsel for plaintiff submits duty sufficiently paid. and penalty the Heard and perused the records. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of contract based on unregistered agreement of sale marked as per Ex.P1. The recitals of agreement of sale makes very clear that the possession of the properties and handed over. It is submission of Advocate for the defendant that in view of provision of Article 5(e)(ii) of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 minimum stamp duty is Rs.500/-. However, the suit being one for specific performance of contract and possession is not delivered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7245 WP No. 19277 of 2023 ascertaining duty on penalty on agreement of sale does not arise. PW-1 present. Defendant's counsel prays time for cross-examination of PW-1. Time granted, subject to cost of Rs.200/-. For cost and cross-examination of PW-1 finally. Call on 1-9-2023.” 4. As can be seen from the impugned order, in one breath the trial Court comes to the conclusion that possession was handed over but subsequently contradicts the said finding by holding that possession was not handed over and therefore, deficit stamp duty and penalty need not be paid by the respondent- plaintiff. Under these circumstances, having regard to the unreasoned, cryptic, laconic and non speaking order passed by the trial Court without assigning cogent and valid reasons, in order to provide one more opportunity to both sides to put forth their respective contentions on the sale agreement dated 29.07.2020, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7245 WP No. 19277 of 2023 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 16.08.2023 O.S.No.217/2020 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, on payment of duty and penalty on the sale agreement dated 29.07.2020 is hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the issues/question pertaining to payment of stamp duty and penalty on the sale agreement dated 29.07.2020 afresh and in accordance with law. iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0