- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6802 OF 2026 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: 1. VENKATESH R SAKRE, S/O LATE RAMANNA SAKRE, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN, RESIDING AT NO.1, GROUND FLOOR, 13TH BLOCK, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 072. (GPA HOLDER OF WIFE SMT. ANASUYA AND SON SIDDHARTHA SAKRE) 2. CHETHAN KUMAR S, S/O LTE SHANKARAIAH HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO. S-113, 9TH MAIN ROAD, TELECOM LAYOUT, ASHWATHNAGAR, THANISANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 077. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DANAPPA P PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 of 2026 KANDAAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, RAJAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT, NO. 3, 'LEELA ARCADE', 3RD FLOOR, BEHIND BDA COMPLEX, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 058. 3. SUB-REGISTRAR, NO. 13, ANDANAPPA BUILDING, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, NEAR PARVATHINAGAR BUS-STOP, LAGGERE, BANGALORE - 560 058. 4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NO. 2, ALI ASKER ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 051. 5. POLICE INSPECTOR, ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 072. 6. SMT. CHITRA S. N, W/O KIRAN HOROGERE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 840, 2ND FLOOR, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 'D' GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANDHA KAVALU, VISWANEEDAM, BANGALORE - 560 091. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 of 2026 7. MANUKUMAR R, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O NO. 59, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, VENKATADRI LAYOUT, KRISHNA GARDEN, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE SALE DEED DATED 15.05.2025 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 6 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.7 AND REGISTERED ON 16-05- 2025 VIDE B.B.M.P. E-P.I.D.NO. 7726690504 IN BOOK 1 NO. LAG-1-00827-2025-26 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU BEING IN VIOLATION OF SUBSISTING INJUNCTION AND ATTACHMENT ORDERS VIDE ANNEXURES-S OR(II) DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 2, DISTRICT REGISTRAR, RAJAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT, BANGALORE TO EXAMINE THE ILLEGALITY OF THE IMPUGNED REGISTRATION AND TAKE ACTION PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AS PER SECTION 22 (b) AND (c) OF REGISTRATION ACT, 2023 (AMENDMENT) IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED SALE DEED DATED 15-05-2025 AND REGISTERED ON 16-05-2025 IN B.B.M.P. E-P.I.D. NO. 7726690504 IN BOOK 1, NO. LAG-1- 00827-2025-26 IN THE OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, LAGGERE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND ETC., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 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 petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Sale Deed dated 15-05-2025 executed by Respondent No.6 in favour of Respondent No.7 and registered on 16-05-2025 vide B.B.M.P. E-P.I.D.No.7726690504 in Book 1, No.LAG 1 00827 2025 26 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Laggere, Bengaluru, being in violation of subsisting injunction and attachment orders Vide ANNEXURES-S; OR (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2, DISTRICT REGISTRAR, Rajajinagar Registration District, Bangalore to examine the illegality of the impugned registration and take action permissible under the Registration Act, 1908, in accordance with law, as per section 22 (b) and (c) of Registration Act, 2023 (Amendment) in respect of the impugned Sale Deed dated: 15-05-2025 and registered on 16-05-2025 in B.B.M.P. E-P.I.D. No. 7726690504 in BOOK 1, No: LAG-1- 00827-2025-26 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Laggere, Bangalore. Vide ANNEXURES- S. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, their agents, henchmen or any person claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the Petitioner No.1, in any manner whatsoever. (iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondents No. 4 and 5 to ensure protection of life, liberty and peaceful possession of the Petitioner No.1 over the suit schedule property and to prevent any unlawful interference or forcible dispossession. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 of 2026 (v) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice equity. 2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be a tenant under respondent No.6 in respect of the petition schedule property. Petitioner No.2, on the other hand, asserts that he has paid a sum of `50,00,000/- to respondent No.6 in connection with an alleged agreement relating to the purchase of the said property. On the basis of these assertions, the petitioners contend that respondent No.6 has executed a sale deed dated 15.05.2025, which has been registered on 16.05.2025. Questioning the validity of the said conveyance, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent No.2 to invoke the powers under Sections 22(b) and 22(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to declare the aforesaid registered sale deed as a void document. Petitioner No.1 has also placed reliance on the fact that he had earlier instituted a suit for bare injunction - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 of 2026 in O.S.No.8292/2022, which according to him was intended to protect his possession over the property. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and upon careful examination of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived. The grievance projected by petitioner No.2 essentially arises out of an alleged monetary transaction with respondent No.6, wherein he claims to have paid a sum of `50,00,000/- towards an agreement for purchase of the property. If such an agreement indeed exists, petitioner No.2 has an efficacious and appropriate remedy under civil law to enforce the same in accordance with law. The dispute, therefore, is essentially contractual and private in nature and cannot be resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, his claim is limited to that of a tenant under respondent No.6. Being - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 of 2026 a tenant, he does not possess any independent locus to challenge the validity of the conveyance executed by the landlord in favour of a third party. A transfer of property by the landlord does not, by itself, confer upon the tenant a right to question the sale transaction between the vendor and purchaser. At best, if the petitioner apprehends eviction or disturbance to his alleged possession by virtue of the subsequent sale, it is always open for him to work out his remedies before the competent civil court in a manner known to law. 5. This Court also finds that the reliance placed on Sections 22(a), 22(b) and 22(c) of the Act is wholly misplaced. Section 22(a) empowers the competent authority to declare registration of any document or class of documents as opposed to public policy and therefore void, but such power can be exercised only when the document in question falls within the limited category of documents which are inherently opposed to public policy. In the present case, the dispute projected by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 of 2026 petitioners does not attract the ingredients contemplated under Sections 22(a), 22(b) or 22(c) of the Act. The controversy raised by the petitioners is purely adversarial and arises out of inter se disputes between private parties regarding title and alleged contractual obligations. Such disputes cannot be adjudicated by invoking the statutory powers contemplated under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 6. The records further reveal that petitioner No.1 had earlier instituted a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.8292/2022. The said suit has already been dismissed by the competent civil court and the said finding has also been affirmed by this Court in the first appeal. In view of the said development, the present attempt by the petitioners to challenge the registered sale deed by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court appears to be a misconceived attempt to indirectly reopen issues which have already been adjudicated. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13406 WP No. 6802 of 2026 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23