Allowed

Smt. Yogeshwari G., v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024WP/33920/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A decree-holder challenged the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed executed by a Court Commissioner in execution proceedings for want of a Form 11E sketch. The High Court held the insistence unjustified under the Registration Act and directed registration without the sketch.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 22.11.2022 quashed; respondent No.2 directed to register the Court Commissioner's sale deed in E.P. No.60/2019 without insisting on 11E sketch within fifteen days, subject to SLP No.

Smt. Yogeshwari G., Vs the State of Karnataka — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51848 WP No. 33920 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33920 OF 2024 (GM-ST/RN)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. YOGESHWARI G., W/O SLUBBARAJU S AND D/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O HATHIKATTE VILLAGE, SHETTIHALLI POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN 577 227.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. KARTHIK S TAYUR., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE SENIIOR SUB REGISTRAR, SHIVAMOGGA TLAUK, SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, VINOBANAGAR, SUDA COMPLEX, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, PHONE 08182249603, EMAIL SR. SHIMOGA@KARNATAKA .GOV.IN PIN 577 204.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, PIN 577 201.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, PIN 577 201.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51848 WP No. 33920 of 2024

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2, THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT TO REGISTER THE SALE DEED WHEN PRESENTED BY THE COURT COMMISSIONER IN EX. 60/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA, WITHOUT INSISTING ON 11-E SKETCHQUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 22.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-D AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed presented by the Court Commissioner in E.P. No.60/2019 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Shivamogga, without insisting on the Form 11E sketch. The necessity for the registration of the sale deed arises out of a decree dated 28.01.2019 passed by the jurisdictional Trial Court, whereby the defendant in the suit was directed to execute a sale deed in favor of the petitioner in relation to the schedule property.

¶24

The petitioner, in order to implement the decree, initiated execution proceedings by filing Execution Petition No.60/2019. In the said execution proceedings, the Executing Court appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the sale

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51848 WP No. 33920 of 2024

¶26

deed on behalf of the judgment-debtor (defendant). Pursuant to the said appointment, the Court Commissioner executed and presented the sale deed for registration before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent (Sub-Registrar) refused to register the sale deed on the ground that the same was not accompanied by a Form 11E sketch.

¶27

The petitioner contends that such an insistence on the submission of Form 11E sketch by the 2nd respondent is legally untenable and contrary to established principles of law. The petitioner places reliance on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.A. No.49/2021 and W.A. No.94/2021, as well as the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7441/2020, where it has been unequivocally held that:

¶28

• When Civil Courts pass decrees that necessitate conveyance documents to be registered, or where the decree itself mandates registration, such as in partition suits requiring registration of final decrees, the Sub-Registrar cannot insist on the furnishing of Form 11E sketch as a precondition for registration.

¶29

• Sections 21 and 22 of the Registration Act, 1908 do not mandate the production of Form 11E sketch for registration of such documents. The only inquiry the Sub-Registrar is authorized to conduct is to verify the identity of the property as described in the document presented for registration.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:51848 WP No. 33920 of 2024

¶32

It has been consistently held that as long as the identity of the property is sufficiently clear from the document sought to be registered, there is no legal requirement to insist on the production of Form 11E sketch. In the present case, the schedule property is clearly identifiable from the sale deed executed and presented by the Court Commissioner. Further, the sale deed has been executed in compliance with the decree of the Civil Court, which has conclusively determined the rights of the parties and the identity of the property in question.

¶33

In view of the above legal position and the facts of the present case, the insistence on the submission of Form 11E sketch by the 2nd respondent for registration of the sale deed executed by the Court Commissioner is wholly unjustified and beyond the scope of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

¶36

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 22.11.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure D is hereby quashed.

¶37

iii. The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to register the sale deed when presented by the Court Commissioner in Execution Case No.60/2019 on the file of II^nd

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:51848 WP No. 33920 of 2024

¶40

Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Shivmogga, without insisting for 11E sketch, within fifteen days from the date of presentation of the sale deed. This direction is subject to the final outcome of SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.8183/2024.

¶41

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶42

TIN

Smt. Yogeshwari G., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yogeshwari G., 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Saritha Gouthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Koragakallu Sri Swamy Koragajja Seva Trust (Reg) Vs the District Commissioner

Veda Vyasa Bhat Vs the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious

Mrs Rumana Bai Vs Union of India

M/S Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy (P) Ltd. Vs Government Flying Training School

M/S. Enn Ess Royal Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Reserve Bank of India