The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Devaraj

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BEHIND OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI, TUMKUR - 572216.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI DEVARAJ, S/O JADIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT YELERAMAPURA, KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TQ, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572129.

¶16

SMT. BASAMMA, W/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶17

SRI. RANGAIAH, S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:23783 WP No. 10961 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. KAMALAMMA, D/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶21

PUTTAMMA, D/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶22

SUJATHA, D/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. RAVI, S/O SIDDAGANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT RANGANAHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572216.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI ANIKETAN SUVVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, IN EXECUTION PETITION No.263/2019 ANNEXURE-A.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23783 WP No. 10961 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Heard Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional

¶34

Government Advocate for the petitioner, and Sri Aniketan Suvvi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

¶35

This writ petition is filed by the State challenging the direction issued in Execution No. 263/2019, dated 21.11.2022, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi, wherein the Sub-Registrar, Gubbi, has been directed to register the sale deed in favour of the decree-holder, in terms of the decree passed in O.S. No. 121/2017, without insisting upon production of the 11E sketch.

¶36

Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the grievance in this petition is only to the limited extent of the direction to register the sale deed without production of the 11E sketch. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the orders of this Court directing registration of sale deeds without insisting upon the 11E sketch are the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15837-15838/2016, and

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:23783 WP No. 10961 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

that, by order dated 11.07.2016, the operation of the

¶41

judgments of this Court has been stayed.

¶42

3.1 Learned Additional Government Advocate further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.A. No. 449/2022, dated 26.11.2025, wherein a similar issue was considered.

¶43

Sri. Aniketan Suvvi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7, submits that the direction issued by the trial Court not to insist upon production of the 11E sketch is based on the judgments of this Court and is, therefore, justified.

¶44

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, it is noticed that the Division Bench of this Court, in W.A. No. 449/2022, while considering a similar issue, directed registration and release of the sale deed if the 11E sketch and other necessary documents are produced. It was further directed that, if an 11E sketch is not produced, the authorities shall await the outcome of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and abide by the same. The above observations would aptly apply to the facts of the present case.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:23783 WP No. 10961 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In light of the interim order staying the judgment of this

¶49

Court, and in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 449/2022, the order of the trial Court, to the extent it directs the authorities not to insist upon production of the 11E sketch, is unsustainable.

¶50

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

(i) The Writ petition is hereby allowed .

¶53

(ii) The order of the trial Court dated 21.11.2022 in Execution No. 263/2019, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi, is set aside to the extent it directs the Sub-Registrar not to insist upon production of the 11E sketch.

¶54

(iii) The Sub-Registrar shall register the sale deed, as directed by the trial Court, if the respondents produce the 11E sketch, in terms of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.449/2022.

¶55

(iv) No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶57

VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Devaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Devaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohammed Shoaib Vs Smt. Shahida

Jayabai Vs Balajinaika

Sri Subbanna Vs Margadarshi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd.

Sri.S.N. Ravichandra Vs Sri.R. Harish Babu

Smt. K Manjula Vs Smt. Umadevi B

Smt. Kalavathi @ Shashikala Vs Sri. Pandappa @ Pandurangappa