[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315
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 /
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2315
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
