Dismissed¶65

Sri. Subbanna v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WA/872/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Priority of a prior mortgage (deposit of title deeds, 18.05.2009) over a later specific-performance decree and Commissioner-executed sale deed; registration of auction-purchaser's Sale Certificate (08.09.2023) issued by Canara Bank under recovery proceedings before DRT Bengaluru in O.A No.1650/2014 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Sub-Registrar endorsement refusing registration; execution petition Ex.No.23/2018; O.S. No.391/2013; writ appeal under S.4 Karnataka High Court Act, GM-DRT classification; appeal dismissed, delay of 115 days condoned. Relevant to conflicts between agreement-of-sale holders/decree-holders and secured creditors' enforcement auctions.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; the writ appeal is dismissed and all pending applications are disposed of.

Sri. Subbanna Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; the writ appeal is dismissed and all pending applications are disposed of.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether registration of the Sale Certificate dated 08.09.2023 issued in favour of the auction purchaser (respondent No.6) could be interdicted at the instance of the appellants, who hold a decree for specific performance and a Commissioner-executed Sale Deed over the subject land.

¶58

Court's answer

Registration of the subject land pursuant to the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.6 cannot be interdicted.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 115 days in filing the appeal is condoned and I.A.1/2024 is allowed.

¶42

Key takeaways

The appellants could not have acquired title to the subject land, as it was mortgaged prior to the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant.ratio¶61
No ground to interfere with the impugned order; the appeal is dismissed.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and C.M. Poonacha, J) dismisses Writ Appeal No. 872 of 2024 (GM-DRT) filed under S.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the Single Judge's judgment dated 10.01.2024 in W.P. No. 28806/2023, which had directed registration of the Sale Certificate dated 08.09.2023 issued by Canara Bank in favour of the auction purchaser (respondent No.6) for land measuring 1 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.74 [old Sy.No.26/6], Hosahudya Village, Doddaballapura Taluk. Although the appellants held an Agreement of Sale dated 24.11.2007 (consideration Rs.1,05,75,000/-), a decree for specific performance (O.S. No.391/2013, decreed 12.12.2017) and a Court-Commissioner-executed Sale Deed dated 12.12.2022 in execution proceedings (Ex.No.23/2018), the Court held that the subject land was mortgaged to Canara Bank on 18.05.2009 by deposit of title deeds — prior to the appellants' suit of 2013 and the Sale Deed of 12.12.2022 (though after their 2007 agreement) — so the appellants could not have acquired title, and registration pursuant to the auction held under the recovery certificate in O.A No.1650/2014 (decreed 31.08.2015 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) could not be interdicted. Delay of 115 days in filing the appeal condoned; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18416-DB WA No. 872 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 872 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. SUBBANNA S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶12

SRI S C MUNIRAJ S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BOTH ARE R/AT SURADENUPURA VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 560088

¶16

(BY SRI. RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

CANARA BANK ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH-1, 2ND FLOOR CIRCLE OFFICE, No. 86, SPENCER TOWER M G ROAD,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18416-DB WA No. 872 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BANGALORE 560001 REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER B RAVIPRASAD

¶23

THE SUB REGISTRAR DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU 561203

¶24

SRI R SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O K RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S ARUN FLORICULTURE R/AT NO 1872, 2ND WARD DEVARAJANAGAR DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561203

¶25

S MOHAN KUMAR S/O R SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO 1875, 2ND WARD DEVARAAJANAGARA DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561203

¶26

SMT SHARADAMMA W/O K RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT No. 1875, 2ND WARD DEVRAAJANAGAR DODDABALLAPUR

¶27

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561203

¶28

GANGAVARAM PULLA R REDDY S/O LATE GANGAVARAM NARAYANA REDDY AGED MAJOR R/AT D -15,

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18416-DB WA No. 872 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SAI MANYATHA RESIDENCY NAGAVARA NEAR MANYATHA BACK GATE BENGALURU 560045

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY MS. PREETHU R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G, AGA FOR R2 SRI. S.A. KHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

¶34

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS IN W.P NO. 28806/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2024 PASSED IN WP NO. 28806/2023, AND CONSEQUENTLY REMAND BACK THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY PERMITTING THE APPELLANTS TO IMPLEAD THEMSELVES AS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND HEAR AFRESH IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:18416-DB WA No. 872 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

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

¶42

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A.1/2024, the same is allowed, and the delay of 115 days caused in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶43

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 28806/2023 (GM-DRT). The said petition was preferred by respondent No.1 [ Canara Bank ], inter alia, seeking directions to respondent No.2 [ Sub-Registrar ] to register the Sale Certificate dated 08.09.2023, issued by the Canara Bank in favour of respondent No.6 [ the auction purchaser ]. The said certificate was in respect of land measuring 1 acre 38 guntas falling in Sy.No.74 [old Sy.No.26/6] of Hosahudya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District [ the subject land ].

¶44

The appellants claim that the subject land belonged to respondents Nos.3 and 5, and they had agreed to sell the subject property for a sum of `1,05,75,000/- and executed an Agreement of Sale on 24.11.2007 on receiving an advance amount of

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18416-DB WA No. 872 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

36,00,000/-. The appellant claims that further payments were made on several dates, the last instalment of an amount of 6,69,000/- was paid on 19.04.2013. An aggregate amount of 95,75,000/- was paid. The balance amount of 10,00,000/- to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed, was retained. The appellants claim that immediately after the said payments, they approached respondents Nos.3 to 5, calling upon them to execute the Sale Deed. However, they failed to do so. The appellants filed a suit for specific performance, O.S. No.391/2013, before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Doddaballapura. The said suit was decreed on 12.12.2017.

¶48

Thereafter, the appellants filed an execution petition, being Ex.No.23/2018, before the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura. In the said proceedings, the Court appointed a Commissioner to execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the appellants. The Court Commissioner executed the Sale Deed on 12.12.2022 and delivered possession of the property to the appellants.

¶49

However, in the meantime, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 created a mortgage in respect to certain immovable properties, including the

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18416-DB WA No. 872 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

subject land, in favour of Canara Bank. The same was for securing a loan of `1,05,78,000/-, which is stated to have been availed by respondent No.3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also stood as guarantors for the performance of the repayment obligations.

¶53

The said borrower/guarantors defaulted in the repayment obligations to Canara Bank. Consequently, Canara Bank instituted an action before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru [ DRT ] under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993). The said action [O.A No.1650/2014] was for a claim of 2,18,11,949/- along with interest and costs. The same was decreed on 31.08.2015 in favour of Canara Bank for a sum of 2,18,11,949/- and a recovery certificate for an amount of `8,31,72,601/- was issued by the learned DRT.

¶54

Pursuant to the said proceedings, the subject land was put to auction, and respondent No. 6 purchased the same in an open auction. The Canara Bank issued the Sale Certificate dated 08.09.2023 in favour of respondent No.6. However, the Sub Registrar failed to register the same on the ground that the Sale

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18416-DB WA No. 872 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Deed in respect of the subject property had been executed and registered in favour of the appellants pursuant to an order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in Ex.23/2018. The Sub-Registrar also issued an endorsement to the aforesaid effect.

¶58

The aforementioned endorsement was assailed in the Writ Petition No.28806/2023 [GM-DRT], which came to be allowed in terms of the impugned order.

¶59

It appears that there is no dispute that the subject property was

¶60

mortgaged to Canara Bank. The averments made in the writ petition indicate that the said mortgage was created on 18.05.2009 by deposit of title deeds. This was much prior to the suit filed by the appellants. The subject land was sold to enforce the said security interest.

¶61

This being the case, the registration of the subject land pursuant to the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.6 cannot be interdicted. The appellant could not have acquired title to the subject land, as the same was mortgaged prior to the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant. In view of the above, we find

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:18416-DB WA No. 872 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is

¶66

accordingly, dismissed.

¶67

All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶68

SD/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶69

SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶70

BS - List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 28806/2023 (GM-DRT), allowing the writ petition preferred by Canara Bank challenging the Sub-Registrar's endorsement refusing registration of the Sale Certificate.¶43
High Court of Karnataka (learned Single Judge) · 10.01.2024
Prior proceeding
Respondents Nos.3 and 5 agreed to sell the subject property for Rs.1,05,75,000/- and executed an Agreement of Sale dated 24.11.2007 on receiving an advance.¶44
Prior proceeding
Appellants paid an aggregate of Rs.95,75,000/-, the last instalment of Rs.6,69,000/- on 19.04.2013; balance of Rs.10,00,000/- was retained for payment at execution and registration of the Sale Deed.¶47
Prior proceeding
Appellants filed a suit for specific performance, O.S. No.391/2013, before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura; decreed on 12.12.2017.¶47
Prior proceeding
Appellants filed execution petition Ex.No.23/2018 before the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura.¶48
Prior proceeding
The Court Commissioner executed the Sale Deed in favour of the appellants on 12.12.2022 and delivered possession.¶48
Prior proceeding
Respondents Nos.3 to 5 mortgaged the subject land (among other properties) in favour of Canara Bank to secure a loan of Rs.1,05,78,000/- availed by respondent No.3; respondents Nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors.¶52
Prior proceeding
The mortgage was created on 18.05.2009 by deposit of title deeds, prior to the suit filed by the appellants.¶60
Prior proceeding
Canara Bank instituted O.A No.1650/2014 before DRT Bengaluru under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; decreed on 31.08.2015 for Rs.2,18,11,949/- with a recovery certificate of Rs.8,31,72,601/-.¶53
Prior proceeding
The subject land was put to auction; respondent No.6 purchased it in open auction and Canara Bank issued the Sale Certificate dated 08.09.2023.¶54
Prior proceeding
The Sub-Registrar declined registration, citing the Sale Deed registered in favour of the appellants pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2023 in Ex.23/2018, and issued an endorsement to that effect.¶57
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No.28806/2023 (GM-DRT) assailing the endorsement was allowed in terms of the impugned order.¶58

Sri. Subbanna v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Subbanna v. Canara Bank

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. N. Nagaraju Vs Shri Umesh Mirji

Sri. G. T. Doraiswamy Vs Shri. Umesh Mirji

Harischandra Gowda Vs National Highway Authorities of India

M/S Healy World Trading India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Shreekanth Kollipara

Sri C G Badrinath Vs Dr K G Jagadeesha IAS

Sri Kaivalyapathi Vs Sri Obalesh