Ramaiah Vs the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION KANDAAYA BHAWAN, 8^TH FLOOR K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR DISTRICT

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46918-DB WA No. 1791 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NO. 623, NO.4, 10^TH C-MAIN ROAD 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶22

S. CHANDRU 51 YEARS S/O. SHIVANNA NO. 1215, BEML III STAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 098.

¶23

SHANKARLAL M PATEL 56 YEARS S/O. MAVJI BHAI PATEL NO.633, RAJESHWARI PRASIDDHI 25^TH CROSS 36^TH MAIN ROAD RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.09.2025 PASSED IN W.P. No.192/2025 (GM-ST/RN) AND ALLOW THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:46918-DB WA No. 1791 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶34

The appellant has filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 17.09.2025 [ impugned order ] passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.192/2025 (GM-ST/RN).

¶35

The appellant had preferred the said writ petition, inter alia praying that directions be issued to respondent No.2 to take action in exercise of powers under Section 22-C of the Registration (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2023 and to cancel the sale deed of the subject property registered in favour of respondent No.4, as the same is a forged document. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the said petition, albeit with an observation that the dismissal would be without prejudice to the right of the appellant to prosecute the suit for decisions on all aspects of the controversy.

¶36

The appellant states that he filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 20.12.2001 in respect of the land measuring 14 acres 28 guntas, falling in Survey No. 71 of Dodderi Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46918-DB WA No. 1791 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

was executed in the appellant's favour by one Basappa and six others. The said suit (being O.S.No.364/2014) is pending adjudication before the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Magadi, Ramanagara District. The appellant is arrayed as plaintiff No.2 in the said suit. The appellant claims that during the pendency of the said suit, the defendants (Basappa and 6 others), who had executed a sale agreement dated 20.12.2001, sold the subject property to respondent No.3 by a sale deed dated 20.06.2014. The said respondent was arrayed as defendant No.8 in the said suit.

¶40

The appellant claims that on 30.11.2017, the Trial Court had passed an order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining respondent No. 3 (Defendant No.8) in the suit from selling the suit property during the pendency of the said suit. An entry regarding the said order was also made in RTC (pahani) pertaining to the suit property. The appellant claims that on 15.07.2022, he became aware that respondent No.3 was attempting to dispose of the suit property in violation of the stay order granted by the Trial Court. The appellant alleges that respondent No.3 had colluded with the officials of respondent No.2 and executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.4 which was

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:46918-DB WA No. 1791 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar as Document No. 8353 / 2023-24.

¶45

It is the appellant's case that in terms of the provisions of Section 22-C of the Registration (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2023, the said sale deed is a forged document and is liable to be cancelled. The learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the said petition on the ground that it was unnecessary to render an opinion regarding whether the document in question is forged or not, to facilitate a decision by the District Registrar.

¶46

It was also contended by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that by virtue of the stay order granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, the subject property stands attached. The said contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge, and in our view rightly so.

¶47

We may also note that the learned Single Judge had also clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not prejudice the petitioner from prosecuting the suit with respect to a decision on all aspects of the controversy.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:46918-DB WA No. 1791 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

We may observe that the issues raised in the present case are not insubstantial. However, we do not consider it apposite to examine the same as the appellant's complaint in this regard is pending before respondent No.2. In the aforesaid circumstances,

¶52

we consider it apposite to dispose of the appeal by directing respondent No.2 to consider the same, in accordance with law.

¶53

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶56

KS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

Ramaiah v. the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramaiah v. the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gurunath Vadde Vs the State of Karnataka

Ann Varghese Vs K. v. Prasad

Commissioner Vs C a Suresha

Sri.a.v.Ananda Ram Vs Sri.Rakshith K.R.

M/S Control Engineers Vs Mallikarjuna M

The Tahasildar Vs Sri Lingaiah @ Ningaiah