- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.605/2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KARIYAPPA S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527. 2. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527. 3. SRI. THIMMAPPA S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024 4. SRI. C. JAYARAM S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527. 5. SMT. NEELAMMA D/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527. 6. SRI. K. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527. 7. SMT. C. RADHAMMA D/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADV.,) AND: 1. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., HOSADURGA BRANCH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER - II DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 2ND FLOOR, JEEVANMANGAL BUILDING RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGLAURU-560025. 3. SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KELLODU HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527. 4. SRI. RAAVI SRINIVASA CHOWDARY S/O RAAVI SAROJA NAIDU, MAJOR R/AT. FLAT NO.102 RAJAHAMSA PALACE, SHIRDINAGAR RAJAHAMSA PALACE APARTMENT ANANTHAPUR ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001. 5. THE TAHSILDAR HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHARAT KUMAR S, ADV., FOR SRI. GANESH A, ADV., FOR R1 SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC FOR R2 SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R5 R3 & R4 SERVED) - - - THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2024 PASSED IN WP NO.23557/2021 AND ISSUE ANY OTHER RELIEF DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23557/2021. 2. Sri.Rajesha Shettigara, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the land measuring 16 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.17 situated at Kurubarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, was originally belonging to one Danavina Kariyappa. The said Danavina Kariyappa had four children. The joint family property was standing in the name of Chittappa who is the eldest son of Danavina Kariyappa and after the death of Danavina Kariyappa, the revenue records were mutated in the name of his eldest - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024 son-Chittappa. It is submitted that the mother of the appellant-late Eramma and the respondent No.3- Thimmappa obtained a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the respondent No.1-Bank and on default, the property which was furnished as a security was auctioned and the sale certificate was issued. It is further submitted that since the appellants also have a share in the said property, the respondent No.1-Bank ought not have sold the entire property. It is also submitted that one of the co-sharers of the joint family is a defaulter to the Bank and the Bank ought not have sold the other co-sharer's property which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Bank supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the mother of the appellants and the respondent No.3 had mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent No.1-Bank and the alleged partition amongst the family members was in the year 2006 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024 such partition was only to overcome the rights of the respondent No.1-Bank. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 5. The appellants filed a writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the certificate of sale dated 25.10.2021 issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal - 1 conducted through public e-auction vide Annexure-A in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of schedule property and order of confirmation of sale of immovable property dated 25.10.2021 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - 1 vide Annexure-B. (ii) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.08.2015 in OA No.1369/2014 passed by the Debt - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024 Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore (DRT-I) vide Annexure-G. (iii) pass such other and further relief, if this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, with costs in the interest of justice and equity." 6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary contention of the appellants is that one of the co-sharers of the joint family furnished the joint family property as security and on default, the respondent No.1-Bank has sold the property. The contention that the appellants are the co- sharers of the property have not been declared in any of the forum and the alleged partition as well as the consequential entry in the revenue records were all done after the mortgage in favour of the respondent No.1-Bank. It is trite law that once the property is sold in the public auction and the sale certificate is issued, a right to seek redemption extinguishes. This Court, in the case of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024 SRI.T.S.NAGARAJ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS1 has considered the law on the point and held that the challenge to the action of the respondent No.1-Bank after issuance of the sale certificate would not lie. In the instant case, the sale certificate was issued on 25.10.2021 pursuant to the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 1 W.A.No.139/2023 dt. 18.11.25