- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4805 WP No. 75 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2026 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SARASWATHI W/O T.K. DHARANEESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT TAMALAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK DISTRICT- 573201. 2. SRI. VINAY GANDHI S/O LATE T.T. KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT THAMALAPURA VILLAGE OPP. TO CHIKKAMMA DODDAMMA TEMPLE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK DISTRICT- 573201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4805 WP No. 75 of 2026 REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE -560 001. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN 573201. 3. SMT. RAMAMANI W/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O KORAGADALU KOPPALU, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 201. 4. SMT. T K PREMA W/O HR ANNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO. 1518, SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN 573 211. 5. SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O LAXME GOWDA R/O NORTHERN EXTENSION, HASSAN-573 201. 6. H.D. BHAGYA W/O K.T. DHARANESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4805 WP No. 75 of 2026 7. T D CHANDAN S/O K.T. DHARANESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT C/O H.S. DODDAIAH 3RD CROSS, VALLABAI ROAD HASSAN 573 201. 8. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE T.T. KARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O NEAR CHRISTIAN CONVENT, BESIDES RING ROAD, HASSAN 573 201. 9. SMT. SHANTHA LAXMI @ SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O SANJEEVA GOWDA, R/O HEMAVATHI NAGAR OPP. YATHINDRA CONVENT, HASSAN-573 201. 10. SRI. DYAVAMMA D/O T.T. KARIGOWDA W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O MACHANAHALLY, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SRUTI C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4805 WP No. 75 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REPORT DATED 28.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF STAMPS, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN IN O.S.NO.3/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN UNDER ANNX-H; SET ASIDE THE ORDER POSTING THE CASE FOR JUDGEMENT BY 08.01.2026 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN DATED 18.12.2025 IN O.S.NO.3/2010. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners are the defendants in a suit, and they are aggrieved by the District Registrar of Stamps' Report dated 28.01.2025. The petitioners have also called in question the Order dated 18.12.2025 in O.S. No.3/2010 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan [for short, 'the civil Court']. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4805 WP No. 75 of 2026 The civil Court, by this order dated 18.12.2025, has listed the matter for pronouncement of judgment. 2. Sri R P Somashekaraiah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners' grievance with the second respondent's Report dated 28.01.2025 and the civil Court's order dated 18.12.2025 stems from the civil Court's order dated 30.06.2025 directing payment of stamp duty and penalty at the rate of Rs.62,995/- and Rs.6,29,950/-. However, the civil Court's order has been called in question by the first petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.31708/2025, and this Court has dismissed the petition on 05.12.2025 with directions that read as under: "ii. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2010 and is in the fag end of trial, the plaintiffs and the defendants having completed their evidence, now set down for cross- examination of PW3. What is now left is only addressing arguments on the main matter. Under the circumstances, the trial Court is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4805 WP No. 75 of 2026 directed to dispose of the matter on or before 19.12.2025. iii. It is made clear that learned counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants will cooperate for expeditious disposal of the matter in accordance to the time frame fixed by this Court without committing any default. iv. It is also made clear that any parties seeking unnecessary adjournment will be penalized and the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on such party." 3. The petitioners' cause of action for the present petition is because of the following observation by the Coordinate Bench in disposing of the petition. "11. Admittedly, this application IA No.47 is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2(a) to pay deficit stamp duty of ₹2,750/- on the unregistered partition deed like it was paid on the document dated 08.11.1996 in O.S.No. 257/2005. The petitioner cannot draw a parity with regard to another document in another suit where stamp duty was permitted to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4805 WP No. 75 of 2026 taken at ₹2,750/- and so also in the writ petition filed before this Court. There is no mention of this document dated 23.10.1993, therefore, the unregistered partition deed of 23.10.1993 was not the subject matter in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 257/2005 or in the writ petition for adjudication. Therefore, when the District Registrar has adjudicated on the deficit stamp duty and the penalty, submitted a report to the trial Court and the same having been accepted, the trial Court has directed the petitioner/defendant No.2(a) to make good the deficit stamp duty and penalty. He is duty bound to do so unless the same is questioned in accordance with law, which is not done by the petitioner/defendant No.2(a)." The underlining is by this Court 4. If Sri R P Somashekhariah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks to elaborate on the petitioners' cause and their locus, Smt Sruti C, the learned counsel who has entered caveat for the fifth respondent [one of the plaintiffs], submits that this is an umpteenth effort to protract the proceedings notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs are silent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4805 WP No. 75 of 2026 about the Memorandum of Partition dated 08.11.1996. 5. This Court is of the view that if the suit is decided without considering the Memorandum of Partition dated 08.11.1996 because the petitioners have not paid the deficit stamp duty and the penalty, and if the petitioners could show a cause even as against the Report dated 28.01.2025 notwithstanding the orders of this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.31708/2025, the petitioners would not be remedy less inasmuch as the petitioner will have the advantage of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of without any interference. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-