Allowed

Swamy v. Sri N Chandru

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2024WP/11003/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition directing the Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed without insisting on Form 11E sketch, citing prior decisions that State law does not make the form mandatory for registration when property identity is established.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent No.3 to register the sale deed presented on 25.04.2023 without insisting for '11E' sketch, to be completed within two weeks.

Swamy Vs Sri N Chandru — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47251 WP No. 11003 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11003 OF 2024 (GM-ST/RN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SWAMY S/O HONNU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT BANNUR VILLAGE AND POST T NARSIPURA TALUK - 571101 MYSORE DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI N CHANDRU

¶13

COURT COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE HONBLE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

¶14

SRI RANGAPATTANA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 29 KENNALU VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA

¶15

DISTRICT - 571435

¶16

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE STATE OFKARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING

¶18

DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

¶19

THE SUB REGISTRAR GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SRIRANGAPATNA - 571438 MANDYA DISTRICT

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE

¶23

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47251 WP No. 11003 of 2024

¶24

RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND GRANT HIM THE FOLLOWING RELIEFSDIRECTING THE R-1 TO REGISTER THE SALE DEED AS DIRECTED BY THE HONBLE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIR RANGAPATTANA DIRECTING THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNX-B AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning Sy. No. 672, Gamanahalli, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. The jurisdictional Civil Court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in Execution Petition No. 75/2022. The executing Court appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the sale deed in favor of the petitioner. However, when the sale deed was presented for registration, Respondent No. 3 refused to register it, citing the petitioner’s failure to furnish the ‘11E’ sketch.

¶29

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.49/2021, WA No.94/2021, and a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.7441/2020 ruled that when Civil Courts pass decrees that necessitate conveyances to be registered or where the decree itself is registered, such as in partition suits where final decrees must be registered, the

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47251 WP No. 11003 of 2024

¶31

insistence on a Form 11E sketch prior to registration or registration being contingent upon furnishing of the Form 11E sketch is not mandated under Section 21 or Section 22 of the Registration Act, 1908. Instead, the contrary position holds true. Such documents must be registered as long as the identity of the property is sufficiently established, which is the only inquiry the Sub-Registrar should make. The identity of the property is clearly ascertainable from the document sought to be registered, as it pertains to the property conveyed, especially in a civil suit pursued according to the law.

¶32

The decisions in the aforementioned cases have been challenged by the State Government in SLP No.8183/2021. However, the Apex Court has not granted an interim order staying the operation and execution of this Court’s order. Consequently, this petition must also be disposed of in light of the aforesaid decisions.

¶33

Therefore, this petition is hereby disposed of in accordance with the aforementioned decisions of this Court.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

¶36

ii. The respondent No.3 is hereby directed to register the sale deed 25.04.2023 presented by respondent No.1 in accordance with law without insisting for '11E' sketch.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:47251 WP No. 11003 of 2024

¶39

iii. However, the registration of sale deed is subject to the final outcome of SLP.No.8183/2021. The said exercise shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶40

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶41

TIN

Swamy v. Sri N Chandru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swamy v. Sri N Chandru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Anilkumar Vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Smt.Siddamma.a Vs Sri.Subbappa

Sri. Ramappa Vs Sri. Ananda

M/S Tharu and Sons Vs Union of India

Alwin Suman Crasta Vs Poornananda C

Eit Services India Private Ltd. Vs Electronics City Industrial Township Authority (Elcita)