Sri S Manjunatha vs Smt Gangamma
2026 Latest Caselaw 2698 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri S Manjunatha vs Smt Gangamma on 26 March, 2026

                                        -1-
                                                   NC: 2026:KHC:17354
                                                  RFA No. 962 of 2019


              HC-KAR




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                     BEFORE
              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                   REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2019 (SP)
              BETWEEN:

              SRI S MANJUNATHA,
              SON OF LATE SIDDALINGAPPA,
              AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
              RESIDING AT CHAMUNDIGUDDA,
              SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
              NEELAGONDANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
              KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE,
              TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572129,
              ALSO AT
              NO.52, IST MAIN ROAD,
              NANJUNDESWARANAGARA, NANDHINI LAYOUT,
              BENGALURU-560096.
                                                          ...APPELLANT
              (BY MISS ARCHANA T V, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally
signed by C    SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
HONNUR
SAB           AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF            1.   SMT GANGAMMA,
KARNATAKA          DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANNAPPA,
                   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                   RESIDING AT IRAKASANDRA COLONY POST,
                   KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK,
                   TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572129.

              2.   SRI JAYARUDRAPPA,
                   S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
                   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                   RESIDING AT IRKASADRA COLONY POST,
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC:17354
                                            RFA No. 962 of 2019


HC-KAR




    KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK,
    TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572129.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THONTADHARYA R K, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI P B AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER
41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
7.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

2. The present appeal is against a judgment and

decree dated 07.03.2019 passed in O.S. No.7/2013 by the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madhugiri, a suit for specific

performance, wherein the Trial Court has dismissed the

suit. The plaintiff is before this Court.

NC: 2026:KHC:17354

HC-KAR

3. The suit for specific performance is based on

the alleged agreement for sale dated 09.11.2012. The

execution of the agreement is disputed by the defendants.

In addition, the defendants have raised the following two

contentions:

a) The agreement is not properly stamped.

b) The agreement is not duly registered.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant would

submit that the document is duly stamped on 01.02.2013

by submitting the same before the jurisdictional Sub-

Registrar. It is urged that, the agreement for sale though

not registered and required to be registered because of

the clause in the agreement which recorded delivery of

possession in favour of the plaintiff, is nevertheless

admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance

under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would urge

that, the defendants have not cross-examined the plaintiff

NC: 2026:KHC:17354

HC-KAR

or his witnesses and have not led the evidence. And this

being the factual position, the Trial Court could not have

held that agreement for sale is not proved and that

readiness and willingness is not established.

6. The statement relating to readiness and

willingness in the examination-in-chief is not controverted

by the defendants. Thus, urged that the appeal be allowed

and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court be set

aside.

7. Learned counsel for the defendants would urge

that the defendant filed an application to impound the

document i.e. agreement for sale on the premise that the

agreement for sale is not sufficiently stamped and said

application was rejected and the document is marked in

evidence and said orders were called in question by filing

Writ Petition No.8280/2017 and W.P. No.57827/2016.

8. It is further submitted that in one writ petition

there was an interim order of stay and the

NC: 2026:KHC:17354

HC-KAR

defendants/respondents carried the impression that, the

stay order is until further orders and thereafter did not

participate in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

9. However, it later transpired that the stay order

was only for 8 weeks and the Trial Court proceeded to hear

the plaintiff, as such, there was no contest by the

defendants and in this background, the judgment and

decree came to be passed. Nevertheless, the Trial Court

has held that the plaintiff has not established the

agreement for sale and has not established the readiness

and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Thus,

urged that the appeal be dismissed.

10. In addition, learned counsel for the defendants

would urge that agreement for sale is not adequately

stamped, the stamp duty paid is subsequent to the

agreement before filing of the suit and that deficit stamp

duty is collected by the Sub-Registrar and not by the

District Registrar as contemplated under the Karnataka

NC: 2026:KHC:17354

HC-KAR

Stamp Act, 1957 and Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to

collect the deficit stamp duty. That being the position, the

document has to be construed as inadequately stamped

and inadmissible in evidence, is the submission.

11. In addition, it is also urged that there is a

recital in the agreement for sale stating that the

possession of property is delivered and in that event, the

document requires registration and without registration of

the agreement for sale, the decree for specific

performance cannot be granted.

12. The Court has considered the contentions raised

at the Bar and perused the records.

13. The Court has framed the following point for

consideration:

(i) Whether the appellant has made out a case for

decree for specific performance.

NC: 2026:KHC:17354

HC-KAR

14. It is an admitted position that, when the Writ

Petition No.8280/2017 was filed, the Court granted the

interim stay order, staying the further proceedings before

the Trial Court. However, it was only for 8 weeks. It

appears that the defendants carried the impression that

the stay order is until further order and thereafter, did not

participate in the proceedings.

15. Apart from that, it is also noticed that when the

agreement was entered into between the parties, reciting

the delivery of possession, the stamp duty as required for

such agreement for sale was not paid. Thereafter, it

appears that the deficit stamp duty is paid before the Sub-

Registrar and Sub-Registrar has accepted the additional

stamp duty. It is urged out from Section 41 of the

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 that the authority to collect

deficit stamp duty lies with the Deputy Commissioner/the

District Register of Stamps and not with the Sub-Registrar.

This aspect is not considered by the Trial Court.

NC: 2026:KHC:17354

HC-KAR

16. The Trial Court has to consider, whether the

whether the Sub-Registrar has the jurisdiction to collect

the deficit stamp duty and if so whether the stamp duty

collected by the Sub-Registrar is in accordance with law

and.

17. Apart from that, the Trial Court has come to the

conclusion that agreement for sale is not proved on the

premise that the plaintiff has not proved the signature of

the defendants on the agreement for sale.

18. It is to be noticed that an expert's opinion is not

sought and signatures on the documents namely the

vakalath and the written statement are compared. What is

required to be noticed is the signatures on the documents

prior to the suit should have been looked into for the

purpose of comparison, if the Court is of the view that

such comparison is necessary.

19. That being the position the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court are not sustainable and

NC: 2026:KHC:17354

HC-KAR

accordingly, are set aside and mater needs reconsideration

and opportunity is to be granted to the defendants to

contest the matter.

20. Hence the following:-

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 07.03.2019

passed in O.S. No.7/2013 by the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Madhugiri are set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh

consideration.

(iv) The Trial Court shall permit the defendants to

cross-examine the plaintiff and plaintiff's witnesses

and should permit the defendants to lead

evidence.

(v) The Trial Court shall also examine whether the

Sub-Registrar is competent to collect the deficit

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17354

HC-KAR

stamp duty and if so, whether the stamp duty

collected is adequate.

(vi) Since the objection is raised relating to the deficit

stamp duty, same has to be considered as the

preliminary point before recording further

evidence.

(vii) Since, the Court has noticed the defendants are

not diligent in defending the matter and

defendants not contesting the matter is one of the

reasons for remanding the matter, the defendant

shall pay a cost of ₹20,000/- to the plaintiff which

is the condition precedent to cross-examine the

plaintiff.

(viii) The Court fee paid in appeal is to be refunded to

the plaintiff/appellant.

(ix) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed

anything on the merits of the matter and the

contentions raised by either of the parties.

- 11 -

                                          NC: 2026:KHC:17354



HC-KAR




     (x)    All contentions kept out.

(xi) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on

16.04.2026 without any further notice.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN/CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47