Allowed

Smt. M B Vedavathi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2021WP/1911/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, directing Sub-Registrars to register Compromise Decrees without insisting on the production of the mandatory 11E Sketch, relying on a prior decision dismissing the requirement.

What did the court decide?

The jurisdictional Sub-Registrars are directed to register the subject Compromise Decrees without insisting upon the production of 11E Sketch.

Smt. M B Vedavathi Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1911 OF 2021(GM-ST/RN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.15211 OF 2021(GM-ST/RN)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.1911/2021:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. M B VEDAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O CHANDRSHEKARA, R/AT NO.3448, 6^TH MAIN, WESLEY ROAD, TILAK NAGAR, MYSURU-570 007.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION 8^TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,

¶15

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION, AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 001.

¶17

¶18

THE SUB-REGISTRAR, MIRLE -K R NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1-R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 SUB REGISTRAR TO RELEASE THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.P-MIR-1-01447/2019-20 DTD.20.6.2019 PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER WHICH IS THE COMPROMISE DECREE, PASSED IN R.S.A.NO.86/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT COPY SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

IN W.P.NO.15211/2021:

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SRI M S DHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O SUBBEGOWDA R/AT MUDARAVALLI VILLAGE SANIVARASANTHE HOBLI SOMAWARPETE KODAGU DISTRICT-571235.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI.B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶29

THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION 8^TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶30

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU -570 001.

¶31

¶32

THE SUB REGISTRAR, K R PETE, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-577 133.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1-R4)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 SUB REGISTER TO REGISTER THE SALE DEEDS RODUCED BY THE COURT COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTERS DTD.19.12.2019 WRITTEN BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC K.R. PETE ADDRESSED TO THE R-4 SUB REGISTRAR WHEREIN DIRECTED TO REGISTER THE SALE DEEDS PURSUANT THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.286/2016 EX NO.22/2018 AND O.S.NO.287/2016 (EX.NO.21/2048) COPY AT ANEXURE-A AND A1 RESPECTIVELY

¶36

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The subject matter of these writ petitions is

¶39

substantially covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.7441/2020 (GM-ST/RN) between LOKESHA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS disposed off on 10.07.2020 wherein the production of 11E Sketch is dispensed with for the registration of document/decrees in question, which otherwise was compulsory; several other Coordinate Benches too have taken the same view.

¶40

A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.932-

¶41

933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF

¶42

¶43

KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY

¶44

disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that identical litigants before the Court are entitled to identical interim reliefs unless there are factors militating against the grant.

¶45

In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; the jurisdictional Sub-Registrars are directed to register the subject Compromise Decrees without insisting upon the production of 11E Sketch, if otherwise the same are not registrable.

¶46

Time for compliance is eight weeks.

¶47

No costs.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Snb/

Smt. M B Vedavathi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M B Vedavathi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Karnanda P Subbaiah Vs Smt. Muthamma @ Shilpa

Shanthi Charitable Trust (Registered) Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

G Chandrashekar Vs Authorised Officer

Sri. Prasanna Kudtarkar Vs Smt. Vidya

Karnataka State Dalita and Bovi Vs Government of Karnataka