- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31779 OF 2017 (GM-CFA) BETWEEN: MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (CHIT FUNDS DIVISION) MSIL HOUSE NO.36, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER (RECOVERY) CHIT FUNDS DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE MRS. YELLAMMA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, 8TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 2. THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR NO.641, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, BBMP WARD NO.8, BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560092 3. SRI. ANANDAPPA T.R. S/O SRI RUDRAPPA V., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.358, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD THINDLU VILLAGE Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 VIDYARANYAPPPURA POST BENGALURU-560097 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTER, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.TO.NO.29/2016-17 DATED 12.04.2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETIITON AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsements bearingNo.To.No./29/ 2016-17 dated 12.04.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 and consequently, to quash the endorsement bearing No.To.No./89/ 2016-17 dated 16.05.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 and to direct the respondent No.2 to make an entry in Book-II and refuse any registration of any documents relating to the properties mortgaged by the respondent No.3 in view of an order of attachment passed by the Additional Registrar of Co- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 operative Societies (henceforth referred to as ‘ARCS’ for short) in Dispute No.RCS/Chits/1/2014-2015 dated 19.02.2016. 2. The petitioner contends that it is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is authorised to do business in Chit Funds as regulated under the Chit Funds Act, 1982. It contends that the respondent No.3 had subscribed to a chit in his name as well as in the name of his wife. The respondent No.3 bid the subscribed chits and received the prize money. However, he did not pay the monthly instalments regularly and became a defaulter. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 had mortgaged a property bearing site No.14, Byatarayanapura CNC, old Khatha No.817/845, new Khatha No.200/43/3/14, situated in Thindlu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, measuring 1200 square feet and property bearing site No.3, Byatarayanapura CNC, old khatha No.1541/78/2, situated at Thindlu, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 2501 square feet. The petitioner contends that the title deeds of the aforesaid two properties were deposited with the petitioner. 3. It contends that it initiated recovery proceedings before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 Bengaluru in Dispute No.RCS/Chits/1/2014-15 under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The petitioner apprehended that the respondent No.3 may sell the properties mortgaged to it and therefore sought attachment of the properties under Section 68 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The ARCS, Bengaluru vide order dated 19.02.2016, ordered attachment of both the properties. The petitioner therefore addressed a letter to the respondent No.2 requesting him to make an entry of the order of attachment in the concerned register. The respondent No.2 vide his endorsement bearing No.To.No./29/2016-17 dated 12.04.2016, informed the petitioner that registration of documents affecting immovable properties is governed by the Registration Act, 1908 and the Karnataka Registration Rules, and that there is no provision in the Act or Rules to refuse or withhold the registration of documents merely on the ground of an attachment order issued by the ARCS. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 26.04.2016 to the respondent No.2 explaining the provisions of the Chit Funds Act and requested him to make an entry in the register. However, the respondent No.2 issued another endorsement dated 16.05.2016 informing the petitioner that there is no provision in the Registration Act - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 or the Rules to refuse/withhold the registration of documents on the ground of an order of attachment. Being aggrieved by the said endorsements, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an attachment order passed under Section 68 of the Chit Funds Act has the same effect as that of an attachment passed by the Competent Civil Court. He referred to Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth referred to as ‘CPC' for short) and contended that it bars any private transfer or delivery of the property attached and any such transfers or delivery of possession contrary to attachment are void. He therefore contends that it is incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to enter the attachment order issued by the ARCS in the concerned register under Rule 171 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, which is maintained under Section 51 of the Registration Act, 1908. He contends that under Rule 171 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, a sub-registrar is bound to refuse registration of the documents, if it is presented by a person who has no right in the property. Therefore, he contends that any document that may be submitted by the respondent No.3 would be invalid so long as an order of attachment is in force. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 He contends that the respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Veerabhadrappa and Another Vs. Jagadishgouda and Others – ILR 2003, KAR. 3042(DB), which was totally irrelevant as facts were different. He contends that the judgment in Veerabhadrappa and Another referred supra related to the question whether sub- registrar can refuse registration on the ground that the documents were undervalued. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 committed an error in issuing the impugned endorsements based on an incorrect reading of the judgment rendered by this Court. 5. He contends that the Court of ARCS is deemed to be a Civil Court under Section 2A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Therefore, the order of attachment passed by the ARCS has to be given effect to in the same way as an attachment of the Civil Court. Thus, he contends that the impugned endorsements are liable to be struck down and a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to make an entry in Book-II to ensure that there are no transactions in the property attached. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the purpose of an attachment before judgment is to ensure that gullible purchasers are not taken by surprise and also to ensure that the person who succeeds in the proceedings gets the fruit of the order. 7. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have inter alia contended that the respondent No.2 is bound to register the document presented by the parties, if it is in accordance with the Registration Act and the Rules. It is contended that the registration of the document affecting immovable property can be withheld only on the orders of the Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the area, which is vested with the powers to decide the title/ownership of the property concerned. They admit that an endorsement was issued by the respondent No.2 dated 12.04.2016 refusing to accept the request of the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Veerabhadrappa and Another referred supra. They also admitted that another endorsement was issued to the same effect. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 8. It is contended that except for the copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments enumerated under Section 89 of the Registration Act, no other copies of orders can be filed opposing registration of documents. It is claimed that the respondent No.2 has no power or authority to refuse the registration of the document if the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules are complied with. It is also contended that the refusal to register a document under Rule 171 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, is inapplicable to an order of attachment issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is contended that the sub-registrar cannot refuse and record reasons in Book-II as claimed by the petitioner. It is contended that under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, it is not the duty of the registering officer to enquire into the validity of a document produced before him for registration or to consider any written or verbal protest against the registration of the document so long as the execution of the document is admitted. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in M.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. Sub-Registrar Rajajinagar and Another - AIR 2000 KANT 46. Thus, it is contended that it would be against - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, to direct the respondent No.2 not to register a document on the grounds of the existence of such attachment orders. Therefore, it is contended that the endorsements issued by the respondent No.2 are just and proper and no interference is warranted. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the request of the petitioner for entering the order of attachment and refuse registration of the document that may be presented by the respondent No.3 is not justified and therefore no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 11. The petitioner has initiated proceedings before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.3 had executed a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the petitioner in respect of the properties mentioned supra. The petitioner had filed an application before the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society under Section 68 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, for attachment of the property before judgment and accordingly, an order was passed on 19.02.2016 attaching both the properties. For the sake of immediate reference, Section 68 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, is extracted below: ''68. Attachment before judgment and other interlocutory orders.- (1) Where a dispute has been referred under Section 64 and the Registrar or the nominee hearing the dispute is satisfied on enquiry or otherwise that a party to such dispute, with intent to defeat or obstruct the execution of any award or the carrying out of any order that may be made,- (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the jurisdiction of the Registrar, he may, unless adequate security is furnished, direct conditional attachment of the said property, and such attachment shall have the same effect as if it is made by a competent Civil Court. (2) Where the Registrar or the nominee directs the attachment of any property under sub-section (1), he shall issue a notice calling upon the person whose property is so attached to furnish such security as he - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 thinks adequate within a specified period, and if the person fails to provide such security, the Registrar or the nominee may confirm the order, and may, after the decision in the dispute, direct the disposal of the property so attached towards the claim, if awarded. (3) Any attachment made under this section shall not affect the rights, subsisting prior to the attachment of the property, of persons who are not parties to the dispute, or bar any person holding a decree against the person whose property is so attached from applying for the sale of the property under the attachment of such decree. (4) The Registrar or the nominee may, in order to prevent the ends of justice being defeated, make such interlocutory orders pending the award in a dispute referred to in sub-section (1) as may appear to be just and convenient.'' 12. Any order passed under Section 68 of the Chit Funds Act shall have the same effect as an order passed by the Competent Civil Court. Under Section 64 of the CPC, any private alienation of the property after attachment is treated as void. As a matter of fact in the State of Madras, an amendment is made in Order 38 Rule 11A of the Code of Civil Procedure which mandates that an order of attachment should be communicated to the concerned sub-registrar. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 13. An order of attachment is devised to ensure that there is no encumbrance created under the property against which there is a subsisting claim. It is also to ensure that no third-party gullible purchasers fall prey and purchase the property over which a prior charge is created. Whenever the property is attached, the owner of such property is temporarily disabled from alienating or encumbering or transferring the said attached property. Therefore, respondent No.2 is bound to enter the order of attachment in Book-II as mandated under Rule 171 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, which reads as follows: ’’171. Reasons for refusal to register.-When registration is refused, the reasons for refusal shall be at once recorded in Book 2. They will usually come under one or more of the heads mentioned below.- (i) Section 19.-that the document is written in a language which the Registering Officer does not understand and which is not commonly used in the district, and that it is unaccompanied by a true translation or a true copy; (ii) Section 20.-that it contains unattested interlineations, blanks, erasures, or alterations which in the opinion of the Registering Officer require to be attested; - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 (iii) Section 21(1) to (3) and Section 22. that the description of the property is insufficient to identify it or does not contain the information required by Rule 15; (iv) Section 21(4).-that the document is unaccompanied by a copy or copies of any map or plan which it contains; (v) Rule 50.-that the date of execution is not stated in the document or that the correct date is not ascertainable or altered so as to make it unascertainable; (vi) Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 72, 75 and 77-that it is presented after the prescribed time; (vii) Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43.-that it is presented by a person who has no right to present it; (viii) Section 34. that the executing parties or their representatives, assigns, or agents have failed to appear within the prescribed time; (ix) Sections 34 and 43.-that the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the identity of a person appearing before him who alleges that he has executed the document or when an executant is not identified to the satisfaction of the Registering Officer; (x) Sections 34 and 40.-that the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the right of a person appearing as representative, assignee or agent, so to appear; - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 (xi) Section 35.-that execution is denied by any person purporting to be an executing party or by his agent; Note.- When a Registering Officer is satisfied that an executant is purposely keeping out of the way with a view to evade registration of document or has gone to a distant place and is not likely to return to admit execution within the prescribed time, registration may be refused, the non-appearance being treated as tantamount to denial of execution. (xii) Section 35.-that the person purporting to have executed the document is a minor, an idiot or a lunatic; Note.- When the executant of a document who is examined under a Commission under Section 38 of the Act is reported by the Commissioner to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, registration may be refused and it is not necessary that the Registering Officer should personally examine the executant to satisfy himself as to the existence of the disqualification. (xiii) Section 35. that execution is denied by the representative or assign of a deceased person by whom the document purports to have been executed; Note. When some of the representatives of a deceased executant admit of the others deny execution the registration of the document shall be refused in toto, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 the persons interested being left to apply to the Registrar for an enquiry into the fact of execution. (xiv) Sections 35 and 41.-that the alleged death of a person by whom the document purports to have been executed has not been proved; (xv) Section 41.-that the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the fact of execution in the case of a Will or of an authority to adopt presented after the death of the testator or donor; (xvi) Sections 25, 34 and 80.- that the prescribed fee or fine or fee under any other Act to be levied before admitting a document to registration has not been paid.’' 14. In view of the finding recorded above that the owner of the property which is attached is temporarily ceased from presenting any documents, the said situation is covered under Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43 of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, the respondent No.2 is bound to enter the order of attachment in the concerned register. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 is not sustainable and accordingly, is liable to be quashed. 15. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement bearing No.To.No./29/2016-17 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30650 WP No. 31779 of 2017 dated 12.04.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 and to quash the endorsement bearing No.To.No./89/2016-17 dated 16.05.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 are quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to register the attachment of the property stated above as per the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the ARCS, Bengaluru, in Dispute No.RCS/Chits/1/2014-2015 in the register, which is meant for refusal to register. This shall be complied within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. It is needless to mention that such entries shall continue in the register until the attachment is raised in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47