- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13692 OF 2026 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGARATHNA H D/O. LATE BYRAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS 2. SRI. H. SUNDAR MURTHY, S/O. HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, 3. SMT. SHOBHAVATHI H. D/O. LATE BYRAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, 4. SRI. HARISH H. S/O. HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.161, 1ST CROSS, T. CHANNAIAH LAYOUT, NAGAVARA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. 5. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. NARAYANAPPA, D/O. LATE BYRAPPA, AGED 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 R/AT. NO.782/C, SRI GANDHA, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 086. 6. SMT. RAMANJINAMMA, W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, D/O. LATE BYRAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT. NO.161, 1ST CROSS, T. CHANNAIAH LAYOUT, NAGAVARA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. 7. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. CHANDRAPPA, D/O. LATE BYRAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT. DOOR NO.191, OLD KEB ROAD, 2ND CROSS, LATE MAHESH BADAVANE, NAGAVARA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. 8. SMT. SARASWATHI DEVI, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. N. VENKATACHALAPATHI, D/O. LATE BYRAPPA, R/AT. NO.174, NAGAVARA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, OPP. LNC TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 045. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.M. HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 AND: 1. THE SENIOR SUB REGISTARAR KACHARAKANAHALLI, NO.798, RAMANJINI COMPLEX, PHELOMINA HOSPITAL ROAD, PATEL MUNVENKATAPPA EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 045. 2. SRI. B. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, S/O. LATE BYRAPPA, AGED 85 YEARS, 3. SRI. R. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. B. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.65, NAGAVARA BUS STOP, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.6865/2009 DTD 10.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND CANCEL THE REGISTERED GIFT DEED DATED 02.06.2007 IN ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE PERTAINING INTO PROPERTY BEARING NO.4, ASSESSMENT NO. 318/53-2 OF HARIJAN COLONY, NAGAVARA VILLAGE, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK AND ETC., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is instituted calling in question the legality and correctness of the endorsement issued by the first respondent – Sub-Registrar, whereby the petitioner’s request has been declined on grounds which, according to the petitioner, run contrary to the law declared by this Court in the reported judgment rendered in Mr. Antony Samy K vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.6910/2026. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned endorsement reflects a patent misdirection in law, inasmuch as the first respondent has proceeded on an erroneous premise that unless there is a specific direction issued by the competent Civil Court to communicate the order nullifying a registered document, the Sub-Registrar cannot act upon such decree. It is submitted that such a stand is no longer res integra and stands conclusively - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 settled by the pronouncement of this Court in the aforesaid judgment. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the short question that arises for consideration is: “Whether the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar can insist upon a specific or separate direction from the competent Civil Court, which has already nullified a registered document, requiring the Court to communicate such decree, as a condition precedent to act upon the same?” Finding on point : 4. This Court finds that the aforesaid issue is no longer open for debate. This Court in Mr. Antony Samy K vs. State of Karnataka (W.P.No.6910/2026) has comprehensively examined the scope of the duties cast upon the registering authorities vis-à-vis decrees passed by competent Civil Courts annulling registered instruments. The Court has unequivocally held that once a competent Civil Court declares a registered - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 document as null and void, the registering authority is duty- bound to take note of such declaration and effect necessary entries in the records, and cannot insist upon a further or independent direction from the Civil Court for its communication. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it apposite to extract the relevant guidelines/directions issued by this Court in paragraph No.23 (a) to (e) of the aforesaid judgment, which read thus: "23. All Sub-Registrars in the State shall adhere to the following directions: a) Whenever a decree cancelling a registered document is communicated by a civil court, the Sub- Registrar shall make the required entries in the relevant register and indexes within four weeks of receipt of such communication. b) Even in cases where no formal communication is received from the Court, if a party produces a certified copy of the judgment and decree declaring the registered instrument as cancelled or void, the Sub-Registrar shall not refuse to act upon the decree. c) In such cases, the Sub-Registrar shall verify the authenticity of the certified copy and thereafter record the cancellation in the relevant registers and indexes in accordance with the Rule 123 of the 1965 Rules. d) The registering authority shall not insist upon separate orders of the High Court or any other authority - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 once a competent civil court has declared the document to be void or cancelled. e) The role of the Sub-Registrar in such cases being ministerial, the authority shall not adjudicate upon the correctness or validity of the decree." 6. This Court, in the judgement rendered in Mr. Antony Samy K vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.6910/2026, having taken note of the recurring and avoidable impediments created by registering authorities in giving effect to decrees of competent Civil Courts, has issued comprehensive directions to streamline the procedure and to ensure that judicial determinations are not rendered otiose by administrative inaction. The guidelines issued therein, which are binding on all Sub-Registrars in the State, are reproduced supra. 7. A careful perusal of the impugned endorsement would unmistakably indicate that the first respondent-Senior Sub- Registrar has acted in complete disregard of the aforesaid binding directions. The insistence on a separate or specific communication from the Civil Court, despite production of the decree nullifying the registered instrument, not only reflects a patent misappreciation of the legal position but also borders on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 administrative obstinacy. Such an approach has the effect of frustrating a decree passed by a competent Civil Court, which has attained finality, thereby undermining the rule of law. 8. This Court cannot remain a silent spectator to such conduct on the part of a statutory authority. Once a competent Civil Court has declared a registered document as null and void, the Sub-Registrar is left with no adjudicatory discretion. The function to be performed is purely ministerial in nature. The authority cannot assume unto itself the role of an appellate forum to sit in judgment over the correctness of a judicial determination. Any such attempt would amount to trenching upon the domain reserved for judicial review and would be wholly impermissible. 9. The conduct of the first respondent, therefore, deserves to be deprecated. Repeated instances of such refusals, despite clear judicial mandates, indicate either a lack of proper understanding of the binding precedents or a deliberate reluctance to give effect to them. Both are equally unacceptable in a system governed by rule of law. This Court expects that the higher authorities in the Registration - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 Department shall take note of such deviations and ensure strict compliance of the law declared by this Court. 10. In light of the binding principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned endorsement issued by the first respondent cannot be sustained, as it is founded on a misconception of law and is in the teeth of the settled legal position declared by this Court. 11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed; ii. The impugned endorsement dated 02.06.2007 issued by first respondent is hereby quashed; iii. First respondent-Senior Sub-Registrar is directed to forthwith take note of the decree passed by the competent Civil Court nullifying the registered Gift Deed dated 02.06.2027 and to record the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24205 WP No. 13692 of 2026 cancellation of the said document in the relevant registers and indexes, including reflection in the encumbrance certificate pertaining to property bearing No.4, Assessment No.318/53-2, situated at Harijan Colony, Nagavara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk; iv. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; v. It is made clear that any further dereliction or non-compliance in similar matters would be viewed seriously and may invite appropriate action in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19