Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 53973 (KAR)

SRI KALEEMULLA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/21586/2025 · 2025-09-19

B M Shyam Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37767 WP No. 21586 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21586 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: SRI KALEEMULLA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL RAZACK, RESIDING AT NO.8, KEMP ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDPASHA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37767 WP No. 21586 of 2025 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, KANDAAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BANGALORE RURAL, NO-B, 89, 3RD FLOOR, 5TH MAIN ROAD, INDUSTRIAL VASAHATHU, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, DEVANAHALLI, MINI-VIDHANA SOUDHA BUILDING, B.B. ROAD, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST -562110. 5. SMT. SHRUTI BABU, W/O SRI. BABU VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, SHUBH ENCLAVE, 1ST MAIN, B CROSS, HARLUR ROAD, AMBALIPURA, BANGALORE-560102. 6. SMT. N.S SHASHIKALA PRAKASH, W/O LATE. R.V PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 6, 1ST CROSS, II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37767 WP No. 21586 of 2025 BANGALORE-560038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R.5 RO R-6 ARE SERVED THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- DECLARING THAT THE REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED DATED 25.06.2025 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. DNH-1-05845-2025-26 REGISTERED ON 27.06.2025 BOOK-I REGISTERED AT THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR DEVENAHALLI, IN FAVOUR OF R5 AND 6 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED IN RFS NO. 485/2023 (SP) (ANNEXURE -D) ON THE FILE OF DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT AND ALSO EXECUTION PETITION NO. 25/2024 (ANNEXURE -E) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI CONSEQUENTLY THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 27.06.2025 IS NULLITY AND CONFERS NO RIGHT AND TITLE IN FAVOUR OF R5 AND 6 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; DIRECTING THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 25.06.2025 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. DNH- 1-05845-2025-26 REGISTERED ON 27.06.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37767 WP No. 21586 of 2025 BOOK-I REGISTERED AT THE OFFICE OF THE SUB- REGISTRAR DEVANAHALLI VIDE ANENXURE -H IN THE FAVOUR OF R5 AND 6 SUFFERS FROM DOCTRINE OF LIS-PENDENS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME IS UNENFORCEABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner's grievance lies within a narrow canvas, and that is because of the refusal by the fourth respondent [the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar] to register the Sale Deed dated 25.06.2025 which is drawn on the orders of the executing Court [the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in O.S.No.263/2020] after the decree of this Court in RFA No.485/2023. The reasons for the petitioner's grievance is recorded by this Court on 02.09.2025 in the following terms: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37767 WP No. 21586 of 2025 "On merits, Mr.V.Lakshminarayana, while inviting the Court's attention to the culmination of the civil dispute in favour of the petitioner in RFA No.485/2023 and the subsequent orders of the executing Court, submits that the Sub- Registrar cannot refuse registration of the sale deed executed in enforcement of a decree only because a prior sale deed is executed during the pendency of the proceedings. Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that if there is a direction by this Court, it would enable the fourth respondent to register the document presented otherwise the fourth respondent will have difficulties with digital enablement in the forms because of earlier sale deed which admittedly is a result of pendente lite proceedings. When queried, Sri.Rahul Cariappa submits that reasonable time may be grated for compliance. Hence, the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37767 WP No. 21586 of 2025 ORDER The petition stands disposed of taking the submissions as aforesaid on record and directing the fourth respondent to ensure that the Sale Deed dated 25.06.2014 is registered and the petitioner is duly informed in writing about the same by 30.11.2025. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr