- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6041 WP No. 2159/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2159/2026 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: SRI H SUDHAKAR S/O. SRI. HIRIYANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.712/B, 10TH 'A' MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S SUDHARSAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, KANDAAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, NO.2, INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6041 WP No. 2159/2026 KARNATAKA - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO REMOVE, CANCEL, AND EXPUNGE THE ENTRY RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE WITHOUT POSSESSION DATED 24.05.2017, REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. SHV-1- 1100-2017-18, BOOK-1, STORED IN CD NO.SHVD250, FROM THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE AND ALL REGISTRATION INDICES AND RECORDS PERTAINING TO SITE NO.62, SITUATED AT DOMLUR, SY. NOS.7 AND 8, HAL 2ND STAGE, BLOCK EXTENSION, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AT PAGE NOS. 47 TO 56B; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE FULL AND EFFECTIVE EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2022 PASSED IN O.S. NO.25606/2017 BY THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT (CCH-58), BENGALURU, DECLARING THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT OF SALE AS NULL AND VOID AND NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND E AT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6041 WP No. 2159/2026 PAGE NOS.57 TO 77 AND 78 TO 81 RESPECTIVELY; C. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY REFLECTING THE TRUE AND CORRECT LEGAL POSITION, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 24.05.2017; D. DECLARE THAT THE CONTINUED REFLECTION OF THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT OF SALE IN THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE AND REGISTRATION RECORDS, DESPITE ITS JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF NULLITY, IS ILLEGAL, AND ARBITRARY; E. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SRO/SHV/452/2025-26 DATED 04.12.2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H AT PAGE NO. 89 F. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHO0RITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.11.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AT PAGE NOS. 85 TO 88. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6041 WP No. 2159/2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has purchased a certain immovable property under the Sale Deed dated 28.02.2003 and he has also commenced proceedings in O.S.No.25606/2017 on the file of the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court']. The petitioner's suit is for declaration and permanent injunction not only against the legal heirs of his vendor but also those who are parties to the Agreement of Sale dated 24.05.2017. The civil Court has decreed the suit on 28.03.2022 declaring that the Sale Agreement dated 24.05.2017 is null and void and not binding on the petitioner but further restraining the parties to the Sale Agreement dated 24.05.2017 from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the subject property. 2. The jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru [the second respondent] - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6041 WP No. 2159/2026 has issued the impugned Endorsement dated 04.12.2025 referring to Rule 17(iii) of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 [for short, 'the 1965 Rules'] refusing to delete the entry relating to the sale agreement in Book-I on the ground that though there is a declaration on the binding nature of the agreement, there is no specific direction for cancellation of the entries. 3. Mr. Sudharshan Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for disposal of the petition. Mr. Sudharshan Suresh submits that the second respondent could not have refused to cancel the entries with the document being adjudged null and void and with the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enjoining in the second respondent [a responsibility in law to enter the details - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6041 WP No. 2159/2026 of the transactions which are declared null and void] and that the provisions of Rule 17(iii) of the 1965 Rules are totally extraneous. 4. The Rule 17(iii) is perused, and it relates to maintenance of certain registers for entering the details of the cancellation. The Rule could indeed be extraneous insofar as the petitioner's request for cancellation of the entry relating to the Agreement of Sale dated 24.05.2017 because of the decree dated 28.03.2022 in O.S.No.25606/2017. Further, a declaration by a competent civil Court would be a declaration in rem which must have its effect and the second respondent in issuing the Endorsement should have examined the terms of the decree rather than the provisions alone. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is favoured quashing the second respondent's impugned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6041 WP No. 2159/2026 Endorsement dated 04.12.2025 directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's request for cancellation of the entry in the light of the terms of the decree and the relevant provisions. [b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt thereof and the second respondent is called upon to communicate the decision on the request in the light of this Court's observation within six [6] weeks therefrom. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB