- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9319 WP No. 318 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.318 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: NITISH RAGHUNATH SHETTY S/O LATE RAGHUNATH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.206, ROYAL RESIDENCY 5TH CROSS, 4TH STAGE BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. JAGANNATH ALVA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHASHI ANDREWS W/O JOSEPHAT ANDREWS AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. JOSHIL ANDREWS S/O JOSEPHAT ANDREWS AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH R/AT FLAT NO.502 5TH FLOOR, ATRIUM HEIGHTS NO.18,10TH MAIN PRASHANTHINAGAR ISRO LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 111 …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2026 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.9.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXX ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCCH NO.31) IN Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9319 WP No. 318 of 2026 O.S.NO.881/2024 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND MODIFY THE SAME AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Set aside the portion of the judgment dated 22.9.2025 passed by the learned XXX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCCH No.31) in OS No.881/2024 which is produced at Annexure 'A' and modify the same as: "The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. The agreement of sale dated 5.5.2023 entered into between plaintiff and the defendants and registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar (J.P.Nagar), Bengaluru as Doc.No.JPN-1-01259-2023-24 in Book 1 and stored in CD No.JPND1640 dated 5.5.2023 is hereby cancelled. Consequently the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar (J.P.Nagar), Bengaluru is directed to make the note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation in terms of Section 31 (2) of Specific Relief Act". (ii) The Office is hereby directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment and to send a letter to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar accordingly, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9319 WP No. 318 of 2026 (iii) And also grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice”. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner does not have any grievance against the main relief passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit, there are certain discrepancies / errors in the operative portion of the judgment and decree, which require to be corrected and necessary directions to be issued to the Trial Court in this regard. It is submitted that due to oversight and inadvertence, the operative portion directs endorsement to be made on the Sale Deed dated 05.05.2023, which in fact is actually a Sale Agreement and not a Sale Deed. Secondly, it is submitted that though the petitioner is ready to refund the entire remaining sum of Rs.72,59,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two lakhs fifty nine thousand only) to the defendants, since the defendants are not accepting the same, the petitioner may be permitted to deposit the same before the Trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9319 WP No. 318 of 2026 Court. Thirdly, it is submitted that in the absence of any issue or findings as regards Court Fee payable by the petitioner, the Trial Court committed an error in directing the registry to collect applicable Court Fee from the petitioner-plaintiff for the purpose of drawing a decree and as such, it is therefore submitted that the operative portion of the impugned judgment and decree may be modified accordingly. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that what is directed to be rescinded by the Trial Court is a registered Sale Agreement dated 05.05.2023 and not Sale Deed and the same deserves to be clarified / modified accordingly. Further, since petitioner is ready to deposit the entire sum of Rs.72,59,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two lakhs fifty nine thousand only) before the Registry of the Trial Court, the operative portion of judgment and decree also deserves to be clarified / modified accordingly by permitting the petitioner to deposit the amount before the Trial Court. So also, learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that there is no issue or finding as regards payment of Court Fee by the petitioner and as such, the impugned judgment and decree directing the Registry of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9319 WP No. 318 of 2026 the Trial Court to collect applicable Court Fee before drawing the decree also deserves to be set aside by issuing certain directions. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2025 passed in O.S.No.881/2024 by the Trial Court is modified as per the following terms. “The suit is allowed as per the terms below: The Agreement of Sale dated 05.05.2023 executed between the plaintiff and the defendants is rescinded as null and void due to breach by the defendants. The Registry of the Trial Court is directed to send a letter to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to make an entry in its records as well as an appropriate entry on the Sale Agreement dated 05.05.2023 to that effect. The petitioner-plaintiff is entitled to forfeit Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) as liquidated damages. The petitioner-plaintiff shall refund the remaining sum of Rs.72,59,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two lakhs fifty nine thousand only) to the respondents-defendants - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9319 WP No. 318 of 2026 within a period of 60 days from the date of such judgment. In the event, the respondents-defendants do not receive the said amount from the petitioner-plaintiff, the petitioner-plaintiff would be entitled to deposit the said sum of Rs.72,59,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two lakhs fifty nine thousand only) before the Registry of the Trial Court. Immediately upon such deposit by the petitioner, the Registry of the Trial Court is directed to draw decree accordingly without insisting on payment of any Court Fee by the petitioner-plaintiff.” Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42