Dismissed¶43

Smt C Padmavathi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2025WP/16178/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Suraj Govindaraj J), WP No. 16178 of 2025 (CS-RES), NC: 2025:KHC:19115, decided 05.06.2025. Certiorari sought against proposed auction sale dated 09.06.2025 by Recovery Officer under award in favour of Saptharshi Credit Co-op Society Ltd.; petitioner had executed registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 who mortgaged the property to the society; claim of unpaid sale consideration and dishonoured cheques to be pursued in pending suit O.S. No.2104/2020; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Once a registered sale deed has been executed and respondent No.3 has acted on it by mortgaging the property to respondent No.2, the question of considering the petitioner's claim that she has not received the sale consideration does not arise ¶42

Smt C Padmavathi Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the proposed auction sale dated 09.06.2025 to be held by respondent No.4 on the basis of the award in favour of respondent No.2 can be quashed on the ground that the petitioner, though she executed the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3, did not receive the sale consideration

¶38

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 having acted on the sale deed and advanced monies, and the monies not having been paid by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 is entitled to proceed against the property

¶42

Key takeaways

The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 as regards payment or otherwise of the sale consideration is between them and is to be resolved in the pending suit O.S. No.2104/2020ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Smt C Padmavathi seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the proposed auction sale dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure-H) to be conducted by the Recovery Officer, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, II Range, Bangalore, on the basis of an award in favour of M/s Saptharshi Credit Co-op Society Ltd. The petitioner had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 (Venkatesh Kumar J), who, acting on it, mortgaged the property to the society, which advanced monies that remained unpaid; cheques issued towards the consideration were dishonoured. The Court held that once such a sale deed is executed and acted upon, the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of sale consideration does not arise for consideration, the society is entitled to proceed against the property, and the consideration dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 is to be resolved in the pending suit O.S. No.2104/2020. Petition dismissed as not making out any grounds.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19115 WP No. 16178 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16178 OF 2025 (CS-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT C PADMAVATHI W/O LATE S RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 738 (OLD NO.4) JAYARAMA NILAYA, MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE 5^TH CROSS, KONAKAKUNTE, BANGALORE - 560062

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MOHAN DAS RAO T.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001.

¶16

M/S SAPTHARSHI CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., NO. 6/1, MALLIKARJUNA TEMPLE ROAD, DR. DVG CROSS ROAD, BASAVANGUDI BANGALORE - 560004

¶17

REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT

¶18

SRI VENKATESH KUMAR J S/O LATE K S JAGANNATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. 95, 7^TH MAIN, RAMANJANEYA NAGARA HANUMAN HILLS LAYOUT

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19115 WP No. 16178 of 2025

HC-KAR

VASANTHAPURA

BANGALORE – 560061

THE RECOVERY OFFICER REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, II RANGE, BANGALORE DISTRICT MARGOSA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560004

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK., AGA FOR R1 & R4; NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS D/W)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE PROPOSED AUCTION SALE DTD 09.06.2025 (ANNX-H) AND ETC.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 4. Notice to respondents No.2 to 4 is dispensed with.

¶31

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

1. Issue a writ of certiorari or an appropriate order quashing the proposed auction sale dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure-H)

¶33

2. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:19115 WP No. 16178 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner though has executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3, respondent No.3 has not made payment of the due amounts of the said sale. The cheques which had been issued have been dishonoured, as such, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.2104/2020 seeking for a declaration that the

¶38

sale deed which has been executed is without consideration, therefore it is null and void. It is on that basis learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the auction process to be held by respondent No.4 on the basis of the award passed in favour of respondent No.2-Bank cannot be proceeded with.

¶39

Having perused the documents on record, it is clearly seen that the petitioner has already executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3. Once such a sale deed has been executed and

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19115 WP No. 16178 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

respondent No.3 has acted on the said registered sale deed mortgaging the property to respondent No.2, question of considering the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has not received sale consideration does not arise. Respondent No.2 having acted on the sale deed and having advanced monies, monies not having been paid by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 is entitled to proceed against the property. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 as regards payment or otherwise of the sale consideration is between respondent No.3 and the petitioner to be resolved in the aforesaid suit.

¶43

In that view of the matter, the above petition not making out any grounds stands dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Smt C Padmavathi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt C Padmavathi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D R Gangaraju Vs Ramaiah Since Deceased by Hir Lrs

Sharanappa @ Sharanagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Dayananda Thokkottu Vs the Recovery Officer

Sri Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Yashavantha Shetty Vs the State of Kanrataka

Ramesha K S Vs the State of Karnataka