Allowed

Smt K Savitha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023WP/46795/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an endorsement refusing registration of a sale deed executed under a power of attorney that was subsequently cancelled. The court held that the refusal was arbitrary and allowed the petition, directing registration while reserving outcomes of pending civil suits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement quashed; Sub-Registrar directed to register the sale deed dated 26.05.2017 and release it to the petitioner.

Smt K Savitha Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 46795 OF 2019 (GM-ST/RN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. K. SAVITHA, D/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.205, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 067.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ N ARALI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, DEVANAHALLI, 1^ST FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶14

SMT. MANJULAMMA, D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, W/O NARAYANASWAMY,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶16

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O KANIVE NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, MUDDENAHALLI PANCHAYAT LIMITS, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DIST.

¶17

SRI. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O DEVANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUKU, BENGALURU RURAL DIST.

¶18

SMT. LALITHAMMA, D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, W/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.139, 1^ST CROSS, KEMPEGOUDA ROAD, WARD NO.8, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, KODIGEHALLI, SHAKARANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶19

SRI. HARISH, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.12 AND 13, SRI. NIKITHA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, GANESHA NAGAR LAYOUT, WARD NO.9, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶21

SRI. PADMANABA @ RAMESH, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NIKITHA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, GANESHA NAGAR LAYOUT, WARD NO.9, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGE HALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 16.8.2019 AT ANNEXURE-H: DIRECT THE R-2 TO DELIVER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED TO THE PETITIONER AFTER COMPLETING THE REGISTRATION FORMALITIES.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has challenged the endorsement bearing No.G.£ÉÆÃ.PÀ.zÉÃ./¹§âA¢/01/2019-20 (Annexure-H) dated:

¶28

16.08.2019 issued by respondent No.2 in terms of which, he

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶31

directed the petitioner to collect back a document without registering it.

¶32

Respondent Nos.3 to 7 and their family being the owners of land measuring 2 acres 4¹ /2 guntas in Sy.No.49 of Mallenahalli Village, Channarayapatna, Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk had executed an agreement of sale dated 24.12.2014 agreeing to sell it and also executed a contemporaneous general power of attorney dated 24.12.2014 favour of the petitioner authorizing him interalia to dispose off the property and admit execution of conveyance before the Sub-Registrar. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 had purportedly received the entire agreed sale consideration under the agreement of sale dated 24.12.2014. It is stated that the entries in the revenue records stood in the name of Munishamappa who was the predecessor in title of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7. The petitioner in order to protect her interest and to avert any foul play by respondent Nos.3 to 7, exercised her powers under the general power of attorney dated 24.12.2014 and presented a sale deed dated 26.05.2017

¶33

for registration before respondent No.2. However, since the revenue entries stood in the name of Munishamappa and was

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶35

not transferred to the name of Smt. Sampangamma, W/o. Munishamappa, the respondent No.2 allowed the admission of the document but did not register it and kept the document pending for registration. The revenue entries were thereafter transferred to the name of Smt. Sampangamma on 29.04.2016. Later when the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to release the document after registration, respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement stating that on 15.06.2017, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 and their family members had cancelled the power of attorney dated 24.12.2014 and therefore, the sale deed cannot be registered and hence, directed the petitioner to collect back the unregistered sale deed. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the said impugned endorsement. It is stated that later respondent No.1 without the notice and knowledge of the petitioner transferred the revenue records of the aforesaid land to the name of her daughter on 08.07.2019.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶37

that when respondent Nos.3 to 7 have not disputed the execution of the power of attorney dated 24.12.2014 and based

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶39

on such a power of attorney, the petitioner had presented a document for registration, respondent No.2 could not have taken into account subsequent events namely the cancellation of the power of attorney to deny the registration of the document. The learned counsel submitted that the revenue entries were transferred to the name of Smt. Sampangamma and therefore, there was no impediment for respondent No.2 to register the document.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7 submits that the power of attorney was cancelled before the document could be registered and therefore, respondent No.2 was justified in refusing the registration of the document.

¶41

The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that since the power of attorney was cancelled, respondent No.2 felt that the documents cannot be registered and no fault could be found with respondent No.2.

¶42

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶43

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶44

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶45

The petitioner was the authorized agent of

¶46

respondent Nos.3 to 7 and their family members and the sale deed executed by the petitioner as an agent was presented before respondent No.2. The document was duly stamped and the document was accepted but registration was kept pending for want of revenue document in the name of Sampangamma. The respondent No.2 having kept the registration pending for want of production of the prescribed document, could not have refused to register the document on the ground that respondent Nos.3 to 7 had subsequently cancelled the power of attorney dated 24.12.2014. The petitioner after obtaining the required documents for concluding the process of registration, did place the same before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 instead of registering the document arbitrarily refused registration taking into account subsequent events.

¶47

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is

¶48

allowed .

¶49

The impugned endorsement issued by respondent

¶50

No.2 is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶52

receive the revenue documents as it stood immediately after the sale deed dated 26.05.2017 was presented for registration before it was changed to the name of Respondent No.3 on 08.07.2019 and register the sale deed dated 26.05.2017 and release the same to the petitioner. However, the registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner shall always be subject to the outcome of any civil suit that may be filed by the respondents No.3 to 7 and their family members.

¶53

Respondent No.2 shall comply with this direction within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, failing which the same shall be construed as misconduct on his part.

¶54

Before, parting, this Court has noticed that the revenue entries in respect of Sy.No.49 of Mallenahalli Village stood in the name of Munishamappa who died on 09.05.2011 and a request dated 23.06.2014 for mutation of the name of his wife Smt. Sampangamma was entertained in MR.No.H.07/2023-14 on 10.05.2014. But the mutation was not reflected in the RTC immediately thereafter but was done

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:33444 WP No. 46795 of 2019

¶56

¶57

on 29.04.2016. This complacency in entering the mutation has resulted in the present proceeding, which is a clear misconduct and smacks of an attempt at undue enrichment by the concerned revenue authorities. Hence the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue is directed to look into the issue and take suitable action against the concerned and report the action taken to this Court.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT:SNN

Smt K Savitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K Savitha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt R Nagarani Vs the Principal Secretary

Lotus Three Developments Limited Vs Union of India

Arun a Advani Vs State of Karnataka

V. D. Chandrashekar Vs U. R. Meenakshi

Sri K v Adithya Bhat Vs State of Karnataka