Disposed

Lalita W/O Halappa Katagi v. Sub Registrar Mundgod

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2024WP/109866/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Sub Registrar to register a cancellation deed for a property subject to the condition that the petitioner and legal heirs of the deceased buyer must personally appear for execution.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 directed to register cancellation deed; condition for appearance of petitioner and legal heirs of deceased R4 imposed.

Lalita W/O Halappa Katagi Vs Sub Registrar Mundgod — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:352 WP No. 109866 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 109866 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LALITA W/O HALAPPA KATAGI AGED: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, AT AND PO: HUNUGUND, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶12

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.01.11 11:24:50 +0530

¶13

SUB REGISTRAR MUNDGOD MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, MUNDGOD, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION KARWAR BRANCH, IST FLOOR, RAIKAR MANOR, KAIKAINI ROAD, KARWAR-581301, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, DIST: NORTHH KANARA.

¶15

TAHASILDAR MUNDGOD MUNDGOD-581349,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:352 WP No. 109866 of 2017

¶18

DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶19

BABULAL KMEHABBOB SAB DHUNDASI

¶20

AGED: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MALAVALLI, POST: CHOWDALLI, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R3, SRI DINESH M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R2 SERVED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:

¶24

A) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.06.2017 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶25

B) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.07.2015 BEARING NO.R.R.T/ ViNiDhi/Viva/31/2015-16 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AND 3RD RESPONDENT BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE NAME OF 4TH RESPONDENT IN RTC OF SY.NO.71 OF MALAVALLI VILLAGE TQ:MUNDGOD AND TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN THE RTC OF SY.NO.71 OF MALAVALLI VILLAGE TQ: MUNDGOD.

¶26

C) ISSUE SUITABLE ORDER AND DIRECTION APPOINTING A COURT COMMISSIONER TO EXECUTE THE CANCELLATION DEED CANCELLING REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED:30.01.2013 REGISTERED AT DEED NUMBER 33/201213 BEFORE THE SUB REGISTER AT MUNDGOD.

¶27

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

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:352 WP No. 109866 of 2017

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.4, who was the successful bidder in the auction sale in respect of Sy.No.71 measuring 1 acre situated at Malavalli village, Taluk Mundgod was impugned in WP No.78166/2013 c/w WP No.78533/2013 filed by the petitioner herein. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2014 held that the sale of the subject property in the auction is bad in law, and so also the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.4 herein subject to condition that, the petitioner reimbursing the entire sale price with appropriate stamp duty and registration charges with interest at 9% on the total amount including the stamp duty, and registration charges from the date of sale till the date of payment, and the sale deed was to be cancelled formally by another registered document as no registered document can be set at naught by a further registered document.

¶32

The order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.100132/2015 and connected appeals, since the Division Bench had accepted the one time scheme proposal. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent No.1 refused to register the draft cancellation deed stating that, neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.4 were present for executing the document.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-D:352 WP No. 109866 of 2017

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 died on 1.6.2021, and his legal heirs are willing to come forward to execute the registered cancellation deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the respondent No.1 may be directed to register the cancellation deed in respect of the subject property.

¶36

The said submission is placed on record.

¶37

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the petition directing the respondent No.1 to register the cancellation deed in respect of the subject property subject to condition that, the petitioner and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.4 shall present themselves before the respondent No.1 to execute the cancellation deed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

bkm

¶40

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 63

Lalita W/O Halappa Katagi v. Sub Registrar Mundgod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita W/O Halappa Katagi v. Sub Registrar Mundgod

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

Smt. Sarojini W/O Balappa Patil, Vs United Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Kolli Mallikarjun S/O Kolli Nageshwar Rao, Vs the State of Karnataka

Kolli Mallikarjun S/O Kolli Nageshwar Rao, Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Raj Fabricators and Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Smt. Yallawwa W/O. Bharmappa Madar Vs Shri. Chandrappa Kalsappa Holer

Shri Dundappa Laxman Gudami Vs the Deputy Commissioner