(BY SRI. RAMESH K. R., ADVOCATE) v. SMT. V. HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R2)

(BY SRI. RAMESH K. R., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

#1. Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, W/O LATE M. P. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 97 YEARS, R/O NO.2217, 2ND CROSS EXTENSION, KUVEMPUNAGARA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 160 REP. BY SON AND GPA HOLDERS i) M. K. NANJUNDA RAO, S/O LATE M. P. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O NO.38, 5TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, C.P.V BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032 ii) SRI. M. K. SREENATH, S/O LATE M. P. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O NO.266, 9TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN, N.T.I. LAYOUT, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1765 WP No. 7385 of 2025 HC-KAR VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 097

#2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMP, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA – 562 159 (BY SRI. B. N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. V. HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA IN O.S.NO.64/2016 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND BEARING THE NO.JI.NO.KA/R.A/COURT/S.T.P/32/2024-25 ANNEXURE-B SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE TRIAL COURT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A IN O.S NO.64/2016. 31/12/2024 REPORT DATED AT THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.64/2016 is directed against the impugned order/report dated 31.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2, the District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamp, who quantified/computed the stamp duty payable by the petitioner on the Consent Deed dated 17.11.2015 as Rs.78,600/- and directed the petitioner to pay the said sum of Rs.78,600/- together with ten times penalty on the said document. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1765 WP No. 7385 of 2025 HC-KAR

#2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned AGA for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

#3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1 instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner- defendant for Cancellation of Sale Deed dated 11.09.2015 and for other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner, the matter was posted before the Trial Court for defendants evidence, during the course of which the petitioner sought to mark an unregistered document styled as “Consent Deed” dated 17.11.2015 said to have been executed by grand son of respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 having opposed the said document to be admitted in evidence on the ground that the document was unregistered and insufficiently stamped, the matter was referred to respondent No.2, the District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamp, who passed the impugned Communication/Report at Annexure-B dated 31.12.2024 computing/quantifying stamp duty payable by the petitioner as 78,600/- as per Section 45(a) r/w. Section 34(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. However, while - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1765 WP No. 7385 of 2025 HC-KAR passing the impugned order, respondent No.2 did not render any finding as regards under which provision or schedule of the Karnataka Stamp Act which is applicable to the instrument and requisite stamp duty payable on the said instrument. It follows therefrom that without recording a finding as to the relevant provision that under which provision of the schedule and description of the alleged consent deed under which the said document was executed, respondent No.2 has erroneously, summarily and unilaterally quantified the stamp duty payable without mentioning the specific article/provision in the schedule under which stamp duty was payable by the petitioner.

#4. Under these circumstances, I deem just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

#5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1765 WP No. 7385 of 2025 HC-KAR (ii) The impugned order/report dated 31.12.2024 passed/issued by respondent No.2, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2, the District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamp, for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 on 02.02.2026 without awaiting further notice. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce documents, pleadings etc., before respondent No.2, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. (vi) Upon passing the order as stated supra, respondent No.2 shall communicate the same to both parties as well as the Trial Court, to proceed further in the matter. (vii) It is further directed that till receipt of report from respondent No.2, the Trial Court before whom O.S.No.64/2016 is pending shall adjourn/defer the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1765 WP No. 7385 of 2025 HC-KAR matter and proceed further, after receipt of fresh report from respondent No.2, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60