- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7550 WP No. 1189 of 2025 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. 1189 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT RATHANAMMA W/O C.KRISHNAMAURTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RACHENNAHALLI, DR.SHIVARAMAKARANTHNAGARPOST, BANGALORE- 560077, REPRESENTED BY G.P.A HOLDER C. KRISHNAMAURTY S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RACHENNAHALLI, DR.SHIVARAMAKARANTHNAGAR POST, BANGALORE- 560077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEGDE V S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O CHANDRASHEKARACHAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. SRI.C.SHREEDHAR S/O S.CHANDRASHEKARCHAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7550 WP No. 1189 of 2025 3. C.BHAGYAJYOTHI, AGEDABOUT40YEARS, D/O S.CHANDRASHEKARCHAR 4. C.GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O S.CHANDRASHEKARCHAR 5. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE, SHANKARCHAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, DR.SHIVARAMAKARANTHNAGARPOST, BANGALORE-560077. 6. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARAPARK, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL S.RAO, ADV. FOR SRI. SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE R1 TO R5; SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2023 AND A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER 03.07.2024 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H.NO.12) IN O.S.NO.6868/2011 IN RESPECT OF PAYING OF THE STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY ON THE ORIGINAL SALE AGREEMENT DATED 19-04-2000 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7550 WP No. 1189 of 2025 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 plaintiff in O.S.No.6868/2011 is directed against the impugned orders dated 22.09.2023 and 03.07.2024 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on the original sale agreement dated 19.04.2000 produced by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit before the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7550 WP No. 1189 of 2025 schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the respondents/defendants, the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence, during the course of which, the GPA holder of the petitioner who was examined as PW.1 intended to mark the sale agreement dated 19.04.2000 as an exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff. At that stage, in view of the objection raised by respondents/defendants that the said sale agreement dated 19.04.2000 was insufficiently stamped, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned orders directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty for the purpose of marking and admitting the said sale agreement in evidence. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to mark the said document or admit the same in evidence at the present stage and the trial Court may be directed to exercise its powers - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7550 WP No. 1189 of 2025 under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and impound the document and refer it for adjudication to the jurisdictional registration/stamp authorities for the purpose of adjudication/determination of the stamp duty payable on the said document in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 37(2) and 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act by setting aside impugned orders. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards sufficiency of stamp duty and quantum of penalty payable by the petitioner on the alleged sale agreement dated 19.04.2000, in the light of the specific submission made by the petitioner that she does not intend to mark the said sale agreement as an exhibit in evidence on his behalf at this stage and the document may be impounded under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and referred to the authorities for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7550 WP No. 1189 of 2025 adjudication in accordance with law, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions to the trial Court in this regard. 7. In result, I pass the following; ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 22.09.2023 and 03.07.2024 passed in O.S.No.6868/2011 by the XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are hereby set aside. (iii) The trial Court is directed to impound the original sale agreement dated 19.04.2000 by exercising its powers under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and send the original sale agreement in terms of Section 37(2) of the Karnataka Stamp Act for adjudication and for adjudication by the competent / appropriate authorities, who shall proceed further in accordance with law under Section 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7550 WP No. 1189 of 2025 (iv) Pursuant to the trial Court impounding the document and referring the same to the competent/appropriate authorities, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner as well as respondents to appear before the authorities and make submissions and file pleadings etc., which shall be considered by the authorities and hear both the parties and adjudicate upon the duty and penalty payable by the petitioner in accordance with law. (v) After adjudication of the duty and penalty payable by the petitioner on the original sale agreement dated 19.04.2000, the authorities shall collect the said duty and penalty payable by the petitioner and transmit / return the document back to the trial court together with an endorsement of duty and penalty having been duly paid by the petitioner. (vi) Upon the trial Court receiving back the original sale agreement dated 19.04.2000 together with the details - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7550 WP No. 1189 of 2025 of the petitioner having paid the duty and penalty, the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. (vii) It is made clear that the present order is passed in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that they do not want to mark the said document as an exhibit at this stage and the present order being passed in the peculiar/unique/special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and the present order shall not be treated as a precedent nor shall have any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RJ/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24