- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34669 WP No. 3107 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3107 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI UTTAMCHAND AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O SRI GANESHMAL NO.1433, K-6 NAVAGRAH DEVASTHANA ROAD K R MOHALLA, MYSORE CITY-570001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE SRI CHENNAPPA. 2. SRI B C SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNAPPA BOTH RESIDING AT BHEGATHAGALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE-570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P NATARAJU., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34669 WP No. 3107 of 2021 THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CALCULATION OF STAMP DUTY DTD.27.3.2003 PASSED IN O.S.NO.205/2015 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MYSORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the calculation of stamp duty by the Office order dated 27.03.2003 and 18.12.2022 in O.S.No.205/2015, pending on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru ( for short the 'Trial Court'). 2. Sri R.B. Sangmesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the defendant. In the said suit, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have pleaded that the defendant has handed over the possession of the suit scheduled property to the plaintiff under the agreement. It is submitted that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34669 WP No. 3107 of 2021 plaintiff has filed a memo seeking permission of the court to pay the duty and penalty on the agreement of sale dated 22.05.2007, and based on such memo, the trial Court has directed the Office to calculate the duty and penalty. The Registry of the Trial Court has calculated the duty and penalty as if the possession is delivered and thereafter the plaintiff filed an application to defer the order of payment which was rejected by the trial Court under Order dated 18.12.2024. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Sri P. Nataraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, fairly submits that even in the objection filed by the defendant to the application, it is stated that possession is with the defendant and also in the written statement they never contended that the possession is handed over to the plaintiff. Hence, he seeks to pass appropriate orders. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34669 WP No. 3107 of 2021 for the respondents and meticulously perused the material placed on record. 5. The petitioner had filed suit in O.S.No.205/2015 seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 22.05.2007. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff had produced agreement of sale dated 22.05.2007 which is produced as a Annexure-D to the writ petition. It is required to be noticed that the plaintiff filed a memo before the trial Court seeking permission of the Court to pay the duty and penalty on the agreement of sale dated 22.05.2007. The defendant has said no objection to the same. Memo was allowed. The court has directed the Office to calculate the duty and penalty. The Registry of the Trial Court calculated the duty and penalty in total Rs.18,79,460/- considering that the defendant has delivered the possession to the plaintiff under the agreement. 6. It is required to be noticed that in Agreement of Sale dated 22.05.2007, in the first page, it is stated that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34669 WP No. 3107 of 2021 possession is delivered. However, last para of the sale agreement indicate that, the defendant has agreed to hand over the documents and deliver possession after receipt of the balance sale consideration at the time of registration of the sale. It is also required to be noticed that the plaintiff had nowhere in the plaint had made averment that the defendant has delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. Similarly the defendants also contended that the suit scheduled property is in their possession. It is further required to be noticed that after the calculation of the duty and penalty by the office, on the premise that, the possession is delivered to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed application I.A.No. 4 under Section 151 of CPC, seeking defer the collection of duty and penalty. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court. 7. Be that it may, the perusal of the instrument in question makes it abundantly clear that the possession of the suit schedule property was never delivered to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34669 WP No. 3107 of 2021 plaintiff under the agreement. The said aspect is also supported with the pleadings on record. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court as well as the Registry of the trial Court have committed a grave error in calculating duty and penalty. It is to be noticed that the instrument that is Agreement of Sale dated 22.05.2007 is on the stamp paper of Rs.100/-, and which is not in consonance with the Article 5(e) (ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Hence, the Office of the Trial Court shall calculate duty and penalty under Article 5(e) (ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. 8. With the aforesaid observation, I proceed to pass the following ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The demand for duty and penalty as calculated by the Registry of the Trial Court, by virtue of the Order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34669 WP No. 3107 of 2021 dated 18.03.2019 is set aside. Consequently, Order on IA No.4 dated 18.12.2020 is also set aside. iii) Trial Court/Registry of the Trial Court shall re- calculate the Duty and penalty as per Article 5(e)(ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and intimate the same to the plaintiff and on such intimation the plaintiff shall make good the stamp duty fee along with the penalty within 4 weeks from the date of calculation and intimation. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24