- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 192 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: RAMAIAH 77 YEARS S/O HANUMAIAH (LATE) NO.416, 17TH CROSS SARASWATHI NAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.S. VIJAYANTH BABU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION KANDAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR DISTRICT, NO 623, NO 04, 10TH C MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU- 560011 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 3. S CHANDRU 51 YEARS, S/O SHIVANNA, NO 1215, BEML III STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560098 4. SHANKARLAL M PATEL 56 YEARS, S/O. MAVJI BHAI PATEL NO.633, REJESHWARI PRASIDDHI 25TH CROSS, 36TH MAIN ROAD RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU -560 098 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KARTHIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMANATH H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 V/O DATED 12.09.2025 NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO TAKE ACTION IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER SECTION 22-C OF THE REGISTRATION (KARNATAKA AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023 UPON THE COMPLAINT DTD. 28.11.2024 (ANNX-F) GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR CANCELATION OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE FORGED DOCUMENT (SALE DEED) NO. 8353/2023- 24 IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.307/2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramnagar [for short, 'the civil Court']. The petitioner, joined by others, has filed this suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 20.12.2001 and has the benefit of the civil Court's order dated 30.11.2017. The civil Court by this order has directed the third respondent [who is described a pendente-lite purchaser] not to transfer the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. 2. The petitioner contends that this Court must direct the second respondent to act under Section 22-C of the Registration (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2023 [for short, 'the Amendment Act'] on a complaint filed by him on 28.11.2024. Mr. N. S. Vijayanth Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits the third respondent, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 notwithstanding the civil Court’s order dated 30.11.2017 and during the currency of this order, has transferred the suit schedule property in favour of the fourth respondent and that the transfer deed is a fraudulent document. The learned counsel emphasizes that because such deed is a fraudulent document executed in violation of the civil Court's interim order, the deed must be cancelled as contemplated under Section 22-C of the Amendment Act and without prejudice to the petitioner to pursue application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Mr. Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first and the second respondents, and Mr. Karthik, the learned counsel, who appears for Mr. Somanath H. S. who is on record for the fourth respondent, are heard. Mr. Rahul Cariappa submits that the petitioner must work out remedies in the pending civil suit, and there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 would be no occasion for a direction to cancel the sale deed executed by the third and the fourth respondents when the suit is pending as all questions relating thereto must be examined in such suit. The learned Additional Government Advocate also submits that only those documents which are contemplated under Section 22-B of the Amendment Act, when registered despite that provision, can be cancelled by the District Registrar under Section 22- C of the Amendment Act. 4. In rejoinder, Mr. N. S. Vijayanth Babu submits that in very similar circumstances, this Court has directed the concerned to consider the representation and take action in law, and even this petition could be disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of the Amendment Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 5. The provisions of Sections 22-B and 22-C of the Amendment Act read as under. "22-B. Refusal to register forged documents and other documents prohibited by law.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register the following documents, namely:- (1) forged document; (2) document relating to transaction, which is prohibited by any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force; (3) document relating to transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift, lease or otherwise, which is attached permanently or provisionally by a competent authority under any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force or any Court or Tribunal; (4) any other document as the State Government may, by notification, specify. 22-C. Cancellation of registered documents in certain cases.- The District Registrar either suo motu or on a complaint received from any aggrieved person is of the opinion, that registration of a document is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 made in contravention of section 22-B shall issue a notice to the executants and all the parties to the document and parties to subsequent documents, if any, and all other persons who, in the opinion of the District Registrar, may be affected by the cancellation of the document, to show cause as to why the registration of the document shall not be cancelled. On consideration of reply, if any received therefor, the District Registrar may cancel the registration of the document and cause to enter such cancellation in the relevant books and indexes." 6. This Court, on reading the afore provisions, must observe that it would be within the jurisdiction of the Registering Officer to refuse registration of certain documents under Section 22-B of the Amendment Act, and if those documents are registered notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, it would be open to the District Registrar, as canvassed by Mr. Rahul Cariappa, either suo motu or on a complaint, to issue notice to the executors/parties to the document to show cause - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 why the registration should not be cancelled and then take a decision. 7. The documents that are under contemplation in this scheme are forged documents as explained in the explanation appended to the afore provision or the transactions prohibited by the Central or State Acts, or document relating to a transfer of an immovable property which is attached provisionally by the competent authority under any Central or State Act, or by the orders of any Court or the Tribunal and any other as specified by notification. In this case, though an attempt is made to present to this Court that the document between the third and the fourth respondents is a forged document as contemplated under this provision, prima facie this Court cannot render an opinion to facilitate a decision by the District Registrar. 8. This Court also opines that whether the third respondent has indeed executed such a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37185 WP No. 192 of 2025 document in favour of the fourth respondent and the consequences that must be if there is any violation, must be examined in the pending suit for complete adjudication. Further, insofar as a document relating to transfer of any immovable property contrary to the orders of any Court or Tribunal for Section 22-B/22- C of the Amendment Act, this Court opines that the property must be attached and that an order of injunction against alienation cannot operate as an attachment that is contemplated under Section 22-B(3) of the Amendment Act. In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of but without prejudice to the petitioner to prosecute the suit for decision on all aspects of the controversy. RB SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE