SRI.K.M. PRAKASH v. Court of Karnataka

SMT.N.UMA., W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RA/THAGARI VILALGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 563 101 (BY SRI. K VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2023 IN O.S.NO.30/2019 PENDING ON FILE OF THE HONBLE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR AT (ANNX-E), ETC., - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2839 WP No. 10510 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: a) To set aside the order dated 20.02.2023 in O.S.No. 30 of 2019 pending on file of the Hon'ble 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kolar at [Annexure-E] and b) Call for the records c) Such other writ direction/order that this just and Hon'ble Court may deem expedient in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. fit,

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent/defendant for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property pursuant to the alleged sale agreement dated 05.08.2013. The said suit having been contested by the respondent/defendant, the trial court - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2839 WP No. 10510 of 2025 HC-KAR passed an order dated 07.12.2022 impounding of the said document and securing a report from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar who calculated/quantified the deficit stamp duty of Rs.24,900/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand and Nine Hundred only), as a result of which, the Trial Court called upon the petitioner/plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.24,900/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand and Nine Hundred only) and ten times penalty i.e., (Rs.24,900 X 10) =Rs.2,49,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Nine Thousand only). Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court directing payment of deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

Learned counsel to the petitioner does not dispute that as per the recitals contained in the alleged sale agreement, possession of the suit schedule property is said to have been delivered in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff by the respondent/defendant. He would however contend that the Trial Court committed an error in - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2839 WP No. 10510 of 2025 HC-KAR imposing ten times penalty upon the petitioner in relation to the said document and the impugned order to the extent that the direct payment of ten times penalty may be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court directing imposition of ten times penalty, the only option available to the petitioner is to pay both deficit stamp duty and penalty, in terms of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and thereafter, seek refund of the penalty in terms of Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that after receiving a report from the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar, the Trial Court has proceeded to impose deficit stamp duty of Rs.24,900/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2839 WP No. 10510 of 2025 HC-KAR and Nine Hundred only) and further directed the petitioner to pay ten times penalty in a sum of Rs.2,49,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Nine Thousand only). As rightly contended by learned counsel respondent, the Trial Court does not have jurisdictional authority of law to reduce the quantum of penalty payable by the petitioner on the alleged sale agreement and in view of the provisions contained in Sections 34, 37 and 38(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition without interfering with the impugned order and by reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to claim refund of Rs.2,49,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Nine Thousand only) penalty paid in excess of Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only) on the alleged sale agreement by approaching jurisdictional Sub- Registrar.