Sri Kariyappa Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd. — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Kariyappa Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd. — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, claiming to be co-sharers of the joint family property, could challenge the sale of the entire property by respondent No.1-Bank in recovery of a loan obtained by their mother (late Eramma) and respondent No.3. +1 more

Court's answer

Finding no merit in the intra-court appeal against the learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition, the Division Bench rejected the appeal and disposed of the pending interlocutory application.

Ratio / Principle

It is trite law that once the property is sold in public auction and the sale certificate is issued, the right to seek redemption is extinguished, and a challenge to the Bank's action after issuance of the sale certificate will not lie.

Key takeaways

In the present case the sale certificate was issued on 25.10.2021 pursuant to the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru; accordingly, the challenge to the Bank's action after issuance of the sale certificate would not lie.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (GM-DRT) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 — Dismissed. Appellants, children of late Chittappa and late Eramma claiming co-sharership in land admeasuring 16 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.17, Kurubarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, challenged (i) the certificate of sale dated 25.10.2021 issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal - 1 through public e-auction in favour of respondent No.4 with the confirmation of sale of even date, and (ii) the order dated 26.08.2015 in O.A. No.1369/2014 of DRT-I, Bangalore. As submitted, their mother late Eramma and respondent No.3 had borrowed Rs.4,50,000/- from Karnataka Bank Ltd., Hosadurga Branch, mortgaging the property, and on default the property was auctioned. Held: (i) once the property is sold in public auction and the sale certificate is issued, the right to seek redemption stands extinguished and a challenge thereafter does not lie, as held in T.S. Nagaraj v. State Bank of India, W.A. No.139/2023 (decided 18.11.2025), on which the Court relied; (ii) the sale certificate here was issued on 25.10.2021 pursuant to the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru; (iii) the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition since disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into under Article 226, the appellants' co-sharership being undeclared in any forum and the alleged partition and revenue entries post-dating the mortgage. Finding no merit, the Division Bench (judgment per Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.; Anu Sivaraman, J. on the bench) rejected the appeal and disposed of the pending interlocutory application.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.605/2024 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka

SRI. KARIYAPPA S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527.

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527.

SRI. THIMMAPPA S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024

HC-KAR

SRI. C. JAYARAM S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527.

SMT. NEELAMMA D/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527.

SRI. K. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527.

SMT. C. RADHAMMA D/O LATE CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADV.,)

AND:

KARNATAKA BANK LTD., HOSADURGA BRANCH

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024

HC-KAR

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527

REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

RECOVERY OFFICER - II DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 2ND FLOOR, JEEVANMANGAL BUILDING RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGLAURU-560025.

SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O CHITTAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BILICHITTIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KELLODU HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.

SRI. RAAVI SRINIVASA CHOWDARY S/O RAAVI SAROJA NAIDU, MAJOR R/AT. FLAT NO.102 RAJAHAMSA PALACE, SHIRDINAGAR RAJAHAMSA PALACE APARTMENT ANANTHAPUR ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001.

THE TAHSILDAR HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BHARAT KUMAR S, ADV., FOR SRI. GANESH A, ADV., FOR R1 SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC FOR R2 SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R5 R3 & R4 SERVED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2024 PASSED IN WP NO.23557/2021 AND ISSUE ANY OTHER RELIEF DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23557/2021.

Sri.Rajesha Shettigara, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants submits that the land measuring 16 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.17 situated at Kurubarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, was originally belonging to one Danavina Kariyappa. The said Danavina Kariyappa had four children. The joint family property was standing in the name of Chittappa who is the eldest son of Danavina Kariyappa and after the death of Danavina Kariyappa, the revenue records were mutated in the name of his eldest

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024

HC-KAR

son-Chittappa. It is submitted that the mother of the appellant-late Eramma and the respondent No.3Thimmappa obtained a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the respondent No.1-Bank and on default, the property which was furnished as a security was auctioned and the sale certificate was issued. It is further submitted that since the appellants also have a share in the said property, the respondent No.1-Bank ought not have sold the entire property. It is also submitted that one of the co-sharers of the joint family is a defaulter to the Bank and the Bank ought not have sold the other co-sharer's property which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Bank supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the mother of the appellants and the respondent No.3 had mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent No.1-Bank and the alleged partition amongst the family members was in the year 2006 and

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB

W.A. No.605/2024

HC-KAR

such partition was only to overcome the rights of the respondent No.1-Bank. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.

The appellants filed a writ petition seeking the

following reliefs:

"(i) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the certificate of sale dated 25.10.2021 issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal - 1 conducted through public e-auction vide Annexure-A in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of schedule property and order of confirmation of sale of immovable property dated 25.10.2021 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - 1 vide Annexure-B.

(ii) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.08.2015 in OA No.1369/2014 passed by the Debt

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024

HC-KAR

Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore (DRT-I) vide Annexure-G.

(iii) pass such other and further relief, if this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, with costs in the interest of justice and equity."

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary contention of the appellants is that one of the co-sharers of the joint family furnished the joint family property as security and on default, the respondent No.1-Bank has sold the property. The contention that the appellants are the cosharers of the property have not been declared in any of the forum and the alleged partition as well as the consequential entry in the revenue records were all done after the mortgage in favour of the respondent No.1-Bank.

It is trite law that once the property is sold in the public auction and the sale certificate is issued, a right to seek redemption extinguishes. This Court, in the case of

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48392-DB W.A. No.605/2024

HC-KAR

SRI.T.S.NAGARAJ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE BANK OF

INDIA AND OTHERS¹ has considered the law on the point and held that the challenge to the action of the respondent No.1-Bank after issuance of the sale certificate would not lie. In the instant case, the sale certificate was issued on 25.10.2021 pursuant to the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru.

In view of the preceding analysis, we do not

find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

1 W.A.No.139/2023 dt. 18.11.25