- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010308542022 NC: 2026:KHC:41906 W.P. No.13916/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.13916/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMESHA S/O THAMMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O THAMMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT DEVAMACHOHALLI TAVARAKERE SOUTH TALUK-562130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA B.N. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 2. SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 3. SMT. PUSHPALATHA D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010308542022 NC: 2026:KHC:41906 W.P. No.13916/2022 4. SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 5. SMT. SAVITHA D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 6. SMT. SHARADAMMA D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT SHANABOGANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.R. SHARATH GOWDA, ADV., FOR SRI. B. RANGASWAMY, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 NOTICE ISSUED NO R3-R6 IS H/S V/O/DTD:12.06.2026 R3 – R6 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.357/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI TO CULMINATING THE ORDER IMPUGNED DTD.13.1.2022 AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE PRESENT W.P. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.13.1.2022 AS ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE C/C 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MAGADI IN O.S.NO.357/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE COURT BELOW CALCULATE CORRECT DUTY AND PENALTY & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010308542022 NC: 2026:KHC:41906 W.P. No.13916/2022 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 order dated 13.01.2022 in OS.No.357/2012 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.Gopala Krishna B.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.R.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for Sri.B.Rangaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The respondents filed a suit in OS.No.357/2012 against the petitioners herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners/defendants filed a written statement contending that, under the Agreement of Sale dated - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010308542022 NC: 2026:KHC:41906 W.P. No.13916/2022 14.04.2004, possession of the property had been delivered to them and that they have been in possession of the property. The trial Court, under the impugned order noticed that the Agreement of Sale dated 14.04.2024 was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.50/- and that the possession had been delivered under the said agreement, and the said instrument was deficiently stamped, proceeded to calculate the duty and penalty at Rs.24,24,450/-. 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, as per the value fixed by the Sub-Registrar, the market value of the property is Rs.75,000/- per acre. Since the subject matter of the agreement is 3 acres, it would be Rs.2,25,000/-. On that, even if the deficient stamp duty and penalty at 10 times the duty are calculated, the amount would come up to Rs.1,23,750/- and not Rs.24,24,450/- as determined by the trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010308542022 NC: 2026:KHC:41906 W.P. No.13916/2022 5. The learned counsel for the respondents refused the said argument and submits that the calculation made by the petitioners is based on stamp duty at the rate of 5%, whereas, during the relevant year, it was nearly 8%. 6. It is to be noticed that, even if the said percentage contended by the respondents is applied, the amount would not come to Rs.24,24,450/- as calculated by the trial Court. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to recalculate the stamp duty and penalty payable by the defendants, by referring to the appropriate notifications issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 13.01.2022 in OS.No.357/2012 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi is hereby set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010308542022 NC: 2026:KHC:41906 W.P. No.13916/2022 iii. The trial Court is directed to recalculate duty and penalty payable by the defendants and direct the defendants to pay the same. iv. The trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28