Karnataka High Court
Sri Guruswamy vs Smt Shakuntala on 12 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315
WP No. 201220 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 201220 OF 2026 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
SRI GURUSWAMY
S/O DHULAYYA SWAMI,
AGE: 70 YRS, OCC: AGRI,
R/O AKHANDALLI, TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. BHIMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. SHAKUNTALA
by SACHIN W/O NAGAMURTHY HIREMATH,
Location: HIGH AGE: 64 YRS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI. SOMALINGAYYA
S/O NAGAMURTHY HIREMATH,
AGE: 45 YRS.
3. SRI. ANAND
S/O NAGAMURTHY HIREMATH,
AGE: 40 YRS.
4. SMT. ANNAPURNA
W/O SOMALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 40 YRS, OCC: AGRI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315
WP No. 201220 of 2026
HC-KAR
ALL R/O AKHANDALLI,
TQ. YEDRAMI.
DIST. KALABURAGI.
5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT,
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., AGA FOR R5;
V/O DTD. 12.03.2026 NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF. I) ALLOW
THE PETITION AND QUASH THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT
REGISTRAR KALABURAGI DTD. 03.11.2025 SUBMITTED IN
O.S.NO.219/2023 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT JEWARGI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E. II)
DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO COLLECT THE DUTY AND
PENALTY ON SUIT AGREEMENT OF SALE DEED DTD.
03.04.2023 UNDER ARTICLE 5(E)(II) OF KARNATAKA STAMP
ACT 1957 TO ADMIT THE SAME IN THE EVIDENCE IN A
O.S.NO.219/2023 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT JEWARGI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C TO MEET THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315
WP No. 201220 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate who is directed to take notice for respondent No.5.
2. Notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 is dispensed with at the request and risk of the petitioner.
3. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.219/2024 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Jewargi against respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein for rescission of contract. In the said suit, he had produced copy of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 03.04.2023 during the course of his evidence. The trial Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 impounded the said agreement for sale dated 03.04.2023 and forwarded the copy of the said document to respondent No.5-District Registrar for the purpose of computation of deficit stamp duty and penalty payable on the aforesaid document dated 03.04.2023. The respondent -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315 WP No. 201220 of 2026 HC-KAR No.5 has now issued the impugned report at Annexure-E dated 03.11.2025 stating that petitioner is liable to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty totally amounting to Rs.18,04,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having referred to the agreement for sale dated 03.04.2023 vide Annexure-C submits that the possession of the suit schedule property which is subject matter of the sale agreement has not been delivered and therefore, stamp duty payable would be under Article 5(e)(ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act and not under Article 5(e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Therefore, the impugned report at Annexure-E dated 03.11.2025 submitted by respondent No.5 is liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 has argued in support of the impugned report. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315 WP No. 201220 of 2026 HC-KAR
6. Material on record would go to show that the defendants in the suit who are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein had not raised any objection regarding the document in question before the trial Court though sufficient opportunity was granted to them. This Court in W.P.No.24862/2023 disposed of on 15.10.2025 in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 has observed as follows :-
"7. From a reading of the aforesaid provision of law it is very clear that, if the possession of property is delivered or is agreed to be delivered before executing the conveyance which relates to the sale of immovable property in part performance of the contract, then the stamp duty payable would be as provided under Article 20 of the Act treating the document as if it is a conveyance and stamp duty would be payable on the market value of the property. If the possession of the property is not delivered in part performance of the contract then the stamp duty payable would be as provided under Article 5(e)(ii) of the Act.
8. A reading of the agreement for sale dated 15.04.2010 would go to show that, the petitioner was already in possession of item no.2 of the suit schedule property which is also item no.2 in the schedule to the agreement for sale dated 15.04.2010 and he was running a business in the said property in the name of 'N.M.Timber'. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner was not put in possession of item no.2 of the suit schedule property in part performance of the agreement for sale dated 15.04.2010 nor it is agreed under the said agreement that in part performance of the said agreement the petitioner will be put in possession of the property. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and it had erred in holding vide its order dated 14.12.2021 that the petitioner / -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315 WP No. 201220 of 2026 HC-KAR plaintiff was liable to pay stamp duty on the aforesaid agreement for sale as provided under Article 5(e)(i) of the Act.
9. Undisputedly, the petitioner is not in possession of item no.1 of the suit schedule property and therefore insofar said item of land, stamp duty is liable to be paid only as provided under Article 5(e)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Trial Court, instrument was referred to the competent authority for the purpose of determination of stamp duty payable and the competent authority vide Annexure-D dated 31.10.2022 had held that the petitioner is liable to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs.1,29,800/- and the stamp duty was rightly levied by the competent authority on the petitioner as provided under Article 5(e)(ii) of the Act."
7. Reading of sale agreement dated 03.04.2023 at Annexure-C would make it very clear that the possession of the property which is subject matter of the said document has not been delivered or agreed to be delivered under the said document and therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.5 was not justified in holding that the petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the said document as provided under Article 5(e)(i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act and on the other hand he is liable to -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315 WP No. 201220 of 2026 HC-KAR pay stamp duty of Rs.20,000/- under Article 5(e)(ii), which is the maximum.
8. Under the circumstances, the impugned report is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order :
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned report at Annexure-E dated 03.11.2025 issued by respondent No.5 is quashed.
iii) The petitioner is directed to pay the maximum stamp duty of Rs.20,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,000/- as penalty before the Trial Court and if the stamp duty and penalty as aforesaid is paid, the trial Court shall mark the document and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT:PK