Dismissed¶74

The Bangalore Development Authority v. Smt Sharada R Shetty

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2026RFA/548/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA unilateral cancellation deed 12.01.2001 registered 20.01.2001 Bengaluru Rural; conditional sale deed 26.05.1993 Ex.P-4; lease-cum-sale deed 14.08.1992; Site No.664 6th Block Koramangala; declaration and permanent injunction suit O.S.No.1205/2001; RFA Section 96 CPC; Section 31 Specific Relief Act 1963; fraud plea; self-help remedy impermissible; rights under registered instrument not divested; ILR 2008 KAR 2245 Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Building Co-op Society followed; appeal dismissed 06.02.2026; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as devoid of merits; pending applications, if any, also dismissed (Order clause (ii)). ¶74

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Smt Sharada R… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as devoid of merits; pending applications, if any, also dismissed (Order clause (ii)).

¶74

Issue for consideration

Point (i): Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the unilateral Cancellation Deed dated 12.01.2001, registered on 20.01.2001 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru Rural, cancelling the registered sale deed dated 26.05.1993, is illegal, is vitiated by perversity or error warranting interference by this Court. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

The defendant-Authority could not have unilaterally got the Cancellation Deed registered so as to nullify the Conditional Sale Deed dated 26.05.1993; a unilateral cancellation does not invalidate rights already created under the earlier registered conveyance.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Where a registered instrument is alleged to be vitiated by fraud, the law does not sanction self-help remedies by way of unilateral cancellation through registration; the aggrieved party was required to approach the Civil Court and seek cancellation of the registered instrument in accordance with law.

¶65

Key takeaways

The findings recorded by the Trial Court are in complete consonance with the law declared by this Court and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appeal; accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the negative.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under S.96 CPC by the Bangalore Development Authority and two of its officers against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2010 in O.S.No.1205/2001 (XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru), which had decreed the suit of respondent Smt. Sharada R. Shetty, allottee-holder of Site No.664, 6th Block, Koramangala, declaring BDA's unilateral Cancellation Deed dated 12.01.2001 (registered 20.01.2001, Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru Rural) cancelling the registered Conditional Sale Deed dated 26.05.1993 illegal and not binding. Following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in ILR 2008 KAR 2245 (Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. D.R.Mruthyunjaya Aradhya) relied on by the Trial Court, this Court held that once rights in immovable property are conveyed under a registered instrument, the conveyance cannot be undone by a unilateral Cancellation Deed; a party alleging fraud must seek appropriate relief before a competent Civil Court (Section 31, Specific Relief Act, 1963), self-help cancellation through registration being impermissible. Finding no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the Trial Court's findings, Point (i) was answered in the negative; the appeal and pending applications were dismissed (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J., 06.02.2026).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.548 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD K.P.WEST, BANGALORE - 560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶9

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST RANGE, BDA KORAMANGALA, BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 034

¶10

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE S.T.P BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE - 560 020

¶11

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI.AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

SMT.SHARADA R.SHETTY 57 YEARS W/O M.RAJEEVA SHETTY RESIDING AT NO.664, 6^TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560034

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. S.SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1205/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The captioned appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) calling in question the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.1205/2001 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that the unilateral Cancellation Deed dated 12.01.2001, purporting to cancel the registered sale deed dated 26.05.1993, is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff, has been decreed.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Trial Court.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are as under:

¶30

The plaintiff traces her title to Site No.664 situated at 6^th block, Koramangala, Bengalore, which was allotted in her favour by the defendants-Authority, followed by execution of a conditional sale deed dated 26.05.1993. The core grievance of the plaintiff arises from the subsequent unilateral cancellation of the said registered sale deed by the defendant-Authority under a Cancellation Deed dated 12.01.2001, without recourse to any adjudicatory process. Questioning the legality of the said cancellation, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit seeking a declaration and consequential relief of injunction.

¶31

Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement denying the plaint averments in toto . On the basis of the rival

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and proceeded to trial.

¶36

In support of her claim, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and one supporting witness as P.W.2 and produced documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-9. Ex.P-9 being the Cancellation Deed dated 12.01.2001 constitutes the suit document, evidencing the unilateral act of cancellation by the defendants-Authority.

¶37

The defendants-Authority examined one of its officials as D.W.1. However, no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the defendants in rebuttal.

¶38

The Trial Court, while addressing the crucial issue as to the competence of the defendants-Authority to unilaterally cancel a registered sale deed, placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court in ILR 2008 KAR 2245 (Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. D.R.Mruthyunjaya

¶39

Aradhya) , wherein it is categorically held that unilateral

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

cancellation of a registered document is impermissible in law and that the aggrieved party must seek appropriate relief before a competent Civil Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Applying the said settled legal position, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit.

¶43

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-Authority and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, and has carefully examined the impugned judgment and the legal principles governing the controversy.

¶44

The following points arise for consideration in this appeal:

¶45

(i) Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court holding that the unilateral Cancellation Deed dated 12.01.2001, registered on 20.01.2001 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru Rural, cancelling the registered sale deed dated 26.05.1993, is illegal, is vitiated by perversity or error warranting interference by this Court?

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(ii) What order?

¶50

Findings on Point No.(i):-

¶51

It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 – Bangalore Development Authority has unequivocally admitted that it places reliance on the Cancellation Deed dated 12.01.2001, which was registered on 20.01.2001 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru Rural. The foundational factual matrix leading to execution of the said Cancellation Deed is also not in controversy. The records unmistakably disclose that pursuant to allotment of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants-Authority executed a lease-cum-sale deed dated 14.08.1992. Consequent upon such allotment, possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff under a Possession Certificate dated 21.07.1992, which is marked as Ex.P-3.

¶52

The material on record further evidences that after the plaintiff fulfilled the conditions stipulated under

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the lease-cum-sale arrangement, the defendants-Authority executed a Conditional Sale Deed dated 26.05.1993, which stands proved at Ex.P-4. These foundational documents namely the allotment, delivery of possession, execution of lease-cum-sale deed, and the subsequent conditional sale deed are all admitted and undisputed by the defendantAuthority.

¶56

Once these facts stand admitted, the controversy narrows down to a short but significant legal question, namely, whether defendant No.1 – BDA was competent in law to unilaterally register a Cancellation Deed dated 12.01.2001, thereby seeking to invalidate a registered Conditional Sale Deed dated 26.05.1993. The sole defence sought to be projected by the defendants-Authority is that the plaintiff had allegedly secured the Conditional Sale Deed and allied documents by playing fraud.

¶57

The aforesaid contention does not advance the case of the defendants-Authority. The legal position

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

governing the issue is no longer res integra . A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the reported judgment relied upon by the Trial Court, has categorically held that once rights in an immovable property of value exceeding ₹100/- are conveyed under a registered instrument, such conveyance cannot be undone by execution of a unilateral Cancellation Deed. If a party alleges that the registered document is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or any other legally cognizable infirmity, the only course open is to seek appropriate relief before a competent Civil Court in a manner known to law.

¶61

The Co-ordinate Bench, while adverting to the relevant statutory provisions, has unequivocally declared that unilateral cancellation of a registered document is impermissible in law, and any such act does not divest the rights already created under the earlier registered conveyance. In the present case, even assuming that the defendants-Authority harboured a grievance that the Conditional Sale Deed was obtained by fraudulent means,

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:7082 RFA No. 548 of 2011

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

the law does not sanction self-help remedies by way of unilateral cancellation through registration. The defendants-Authority was required to approach the Civil Court and seek cancellation of the registered instrument in accordance with law.

¶66

The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the reported judgment. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated both the admitted factual matrix and the settled legal position and has correctly held that the defendant-Authority could not have unilaterally got the Cancellation Deed registered so as to nullify the Conditional Sale Deed dated 26.05.1993. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are in complete consonance with the law declared by this Court and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appeal. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the " Negative" .

¶67