[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rangappa @ Ganganna vs Gangahonnappa on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16921
WP No. 15564 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.15564 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. RANGAPPA @ GANGANNA,
S/O SRI. BILLEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT MUNICIPAL NO.267/13,
NEW NO.13, RAJAJINAGAR 3RD STAGE,
PRAKASHNAGAR, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560021.
LRS OF THE PETITIONER
1(a) SMT. NANJAMMA,
D/O LATE RANGAPPA @ GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.138/D2,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 6TH MAIN ROAD, PRAKASH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560021.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1(b) SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R.,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA @ GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3656/18,
GANESH RAO LAYOUT,
NELAMANGALA TOWN, NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-562123.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.02.2026)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C.G. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16921
WP No. 15564 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND:
1. GANGAHONNAPPA,
S/O SRI. C. HONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2. GANGARAJU,
S/O SRI. C. HONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
3. CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRA,
S/O SRI. C.HONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
1 TO 3 RESIDING AT
KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562162.
4. SMT. LEELAMMA,
W/O SRI. P. NARAYANAPPA,
D/O SMT. GANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.L19,
8TH CROSS ROAD,
LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA,
SRIRAMPURA,
BENGALURU-560021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.S.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. SANTHOSH S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 01.12.2021, ON THE MARKING OF THE SUIT
AGREEMENT I.E., THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED
26.11.2014, IN O.S.NO.1679/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE I
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16921
WP No. 15564 of 2022
HC-KAR
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 2) VIDE
ANNX-A AND TO DIRECT THAT THE SUIT AGREEMENT I.E., THE
AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 26.11.2014, VIDE ANNX-D BE
MARKED IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AS PW1 IN
O.S. NO.1679/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 2).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
01.12.2021 passed in O.S.No.1679/2017 by the IX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Sri P. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance
of the agreement of sale dated 26.11.2014 and in the said suit
he produced the agreement in question. At that stage, the
defendants raised objection for acceptance and marking of the
said document on the ground that the instrument is
insufficiently stamped. It is submitted that the agreement of
sale is an unregistered agreement. It is the specific contention
of the plaintiff that he was put in possession of the property 40
years prior to the agreement and hence, the question of paying
NC: 2026:KHC:16921
HC-KAR
duty and penalty as ordered by the Trial Court would not arise.
In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision
of this Court in the case of SMT. TULASAMMA AND OTHERS
v. SMT. M.S. SEETHALAKSHMI AND OTHERS1 and seeks to
allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
3. Per contra, Sri L.S.Manjunath, the learned counsel
for respondent No.4 supports the impugned order of the Trial
Court and submits that the Trial Court has considered the
agreement in question and recorded clear finding that the
instrument is an unregistered document and possession is
delivered on the same instrument and hence, they are liable to
pay the duty and penalty as per the conveyance and on actual
market value of the property and seeks to dismiss the writ
petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.4
and meticulously perused the material on record.
W.P.No.2200/2020 (GM-CPC) dated 22.01.2026
NC: 2026:KHC:16921
HC-KAR
5. The petitioner filed O.S.No.1679/2017 against the
respondents herein for the relief of specific performance of the
agreement of sale dated 26.11.2014. In the said suit, the
defendants filed the written statement denying the assertions
made in the plaint. The matter was posted for trial. During the
course of the plaintiff's evidence, P.W.1 produced the original
agreement of sale dated 26.11.2014. The said document was
sought to be marked, which was opposed by the counsel for the
defendants on the ground that the agreement of sale is an
unregistered agreement and the said agreement of sale
indicates delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff.
Considering the contentions from both sides, the Trial Court
under the impugned order upheld the objection of the
defendants, impounded the agreement of sale by directing the
plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the agreement of
sale by next day of hearing.
6. The only question that arise for consideration in this
writ petition is:
"Whether the agreement of sale dated
26.11.2014, under which the plaintiff claims to
seek a relief for specific performance can be
NC: 2026:KHC:16921
HC-KAR
accepted and marked in evidence in view of the
opposition of the defendants on the ground of
insufficient stamp duty?"
7. Admittedly, in the agreement of sale in question,
the stamp duty paid by the plaintiff is Rs.200/-. A perusal of
the covenants of the agreement of sale, particularly at page 3,
last paragraph, indicates that the plaintiff has been in
possession of the property for the past 40 years, and it refers
to the receipt of the amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. In page No.4,
the agreement further makes a reference that under the
agreement, the plaintiff has paid certain amount to the
defendants and the defendants handed over the physical
possession of the property. The agreement is very clear that
the property in question was delivered in favour of the plaintiff.
When things stand thus, I am of the considered view that the
instrument in question is deficiently stamped and is liable to be
impounded.
8. This Court in the case of SMT. ANITHA SHANTI
VAZ v. SMT. NOOTHAN SHETTY AND OTHERS2 has
W.P.No.2065/2024 disposed of on 11.03.2026
NC: 2026:KHC:16921
HC-KAR
considered the effect of Article 5 of the Karnataka Stamp Act,
1957 and held that if the possession is delivered under the
agreement, then the plaintiff is liable to pay the stamp duty as
if it is a conveyance as stated under Article 20 of the Act on the
market value of the property. In the case on hand, the
covenant of the agreement makes it very clear that the
possession of the property was delivered under the agreement
and hence, I do not find any error or perversity in the finding
recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order calling for
interference in this petition. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and the same is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
