Dismissed¶46

M/S Golden Gate Properties Limited v. Mr Basavaraju

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025WP/12921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), W.P. No.12921/2022 (GM-CPC), decided 21.11.2025 by Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. Article 227 certiorari against deficit court-fee order dated 23.04.2021 in O.S.No.412/2021 (4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District) requiring plaintiff-developers to pay deficit court fee on Rs.65,00,000/- for suing on joint-development term sheets dated 22.03.2014/29.07.2015/11.12.2015; Article 5 Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 levy upheld; Section 40(e) Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act 1958 contention rejected; petition dismissed; court fee to be made good within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Trial Court rightly concluded that the petitioners-plaintiffs, who intend to enforce the term sheets, are liable to pay stamp duty as per Article 5 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. ¶41

M/S Golden Gate Properties Limited Vs Mr Basavaraju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.04.2021 in O.S.No.412/2021 directing payment of deficit court fee on Rs.65,00,000/- should be set aside in certiorari under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is rejected; consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court rightly concluded that the petitioners-plaintiffs, who intend to enforce the term sheets, are liable to pay stamp duty as per Article 5 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

¶41

Key takeaways

The Trial Court considered the value of the property as Rs.65,00,000/- and ordered payment of deficit court fee; the High Court finds no error or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.ratio¶44
The petitioner shall make good the Court fee within a period of four weeks.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Art. 227, GM-CPC) by M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd. and M/s. Prisha Properties India Pvt. Ltd., plaintiffs in O.S.No.412/2021, seeking certiorari to set aside the order dated 23.04.2021 of the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (Annexure-A) directing payment of deficit court fee on Rs.65,00,000/-. The suit sought specific performance of term sheets dated 22.03.2014, 29.07.2015 and 11.12.2015 for execution of a registered joint development agreement; the term sheet contemplated a non-refundable deposit of Rs.65,00,000/- per acre and a Rs.20,00,000/- token advance. On the respondents' objections, the Trial Court held the plaintiffs liable to stamp duty under Article 5, Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, valuing the property at Rs.65,00,000/-. Counsel contended the case fell outside Section 40(e), Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Held: no error or perversity in the Trial Court's findings; petition rejected, pending interlocutory application disposed of, petitioner to make good the court fee within four weeks, no order as to costs. (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J., 21.11.2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48291 W.P. No.12921/2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12921/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM

¶9

Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶10

M/S. GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.820, GOLDEN HOUSE 80 FEET ROAD 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560095 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR MR. RATHISH KUMAR S/O R. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶11

M/S. PRISHA PROPERTIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 820, GOLDEN HOUSE 2ND FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560095 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR MR. RATHISH KUMAR S/O R. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. A.C. CHETHAN, ADV.,)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48291 W.P. No.12921/2022

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

MR. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. CHIKKABANAHALLI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BIDARAHALLI EAST TALUK BENGALURU -560067.

¶18

MR. UMASHANKAR S/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. CHIKKABANAHALLI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU -560067.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ N, ADV.,)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 23.04.2021 IN O.S.NO.412/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE DIRECTION FOR PAYMENT OF DEFICIT COURT FEE ON RS.65,00,000/- IS CONCERNED & ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:48291 W.P. No.12921/2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

¶29

"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the Order dated 23.04.2021 in O.S.No.412/2021 passed by the Court of the 4^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, in so far as the direction for payment of deficit court fee on Rs.65,00,000/- is concerned."

¶30

Sri.A.C.Chethan, learned counsel for the

¶31

petitioners submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order holding that the suit suffers from deficit Court fee and further directing the plaintiffs to make good the deficit Court fee on Rs.65,00,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed a suit for the relief of specific performance to enforce

¶32

the term sheet dated 22.03.2014, supplementary term sheet dated 29.07.2015 and further supplementary term sheet dated 11.12.2015 by directing the defendants to execute a registered joint development agreement in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that the term sheets sought to be enforced in the suit can only be termed as a precondition for an

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48291 W.P. No.12921/2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

agreement, execution of the joint development agreement and the General Power of Attorney as is evident from Clause 10 of the term sheet dated 22.03.2014. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioners would not fall within Section 40(e) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Hence, the impugned order calls for interference.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both the sides.

¶37

The petitioners have filed a suit for the relief of specific performance to enforce the term sheet dated 22.03.2014, supplementary term sheet dated 29.07.2015 and further supplementary term sheet dated 11.12.2015. The respondents entered appearance and filed objections with regard to the payment of Court fee. Based on the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48291 W.P. No.12921/2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

objections of the respondents, the Trial Court passed the impugned order. A perusal of the term sheet dated 22.03.2014 clearly indicates that the owners have offered land measuring 19 acres to the developer for joint development of villas and it was agreed to share 60% to the developer and 40% to the landowner. The said term sheet indicates that the property is situated in Survey Nos.5, 6 and 7 of Chikkabanahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The payment terms of the term sheet dated 22.03.2014 indicates that the total deposit to be paid to the owners is Rs.65,00,000/- per acre, which is a non-refundable deposit. As per the said terms, a token advance of Rs.20,00,000/-, after signing of the term sheet is paid as per the Cheques referred in the said term sheet.

¶41

The Trial Court, considering the clauses of the said term sheet has come to conclusion that the petitioners-plaintiffs intend to enforce the said term sheet and they are liable to pay the stamp duty as per Article 5

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48291 W.P. No.12921/2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and considered the value of the property as Rs.65,00,000/- and ordered to pay the deficit Court fee. The Trial Court, while arriving at the said conclusion, has extracted the ratio of shares allotted in the said terms sheet, amount paid to the owners and other clauses. The said reasoning of the Trial Court is based on the decisions rendered by this Court, which are referred in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. I do not find any error or perversity in findings recorded by the Trial Court.

¶45