Karnataka High Court
Sri M Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19210-DB
WA No. 313 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M PRAKASH
S/O A MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT No.1058/3
PRAGATHI, 4TH CROSS ROAD
K N EXTESNION, YESHWANTHPURA
BANGALORE - 560 022
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHETAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T M VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
AMBIKA H B 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS
High Court PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
of Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE SUB-REGISTRAR
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
SUGGAPPA LAYOUT
EAST COLONY, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19210-DB
WA No. 313 of 2023
3. SRI B MARIYAPPA
S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT No.41, 4TH MAIN
13TH CROSS, VYALIKAVAL
BANGALORE - 560 003
4. SRI. P.V.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE P VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/A No.4, "MATHRUSHREE NILAYA"
AMRUTHAHALLI, KASHI NAGAR
BB ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 054
5. SRI P V MANJUNATH
S/O LATE P V KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ADVOCATE AND EX-CORPORATOR
R/AT No.4, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA
AMRUTHALLI, KASHI NAGAR
BB ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 054
6. SRI B KESHAVA REDDY
S/O B MUNI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT No.3, 8TH MAIN ROAD
8TH CROSS ROAD
BRINDAVAN NAGAR
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE - 560 054
7. SMT. GAYATRHI SATISH
W/O N SATISH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT No.434, 6TH CROSS ROAD
1ST MAIN ROAD, GOKULA EXTENSION
1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 054
8. B BHARATHI
D/O ANJANEYA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O No.43, 1ST STAGE
5TH PHASE
SHIVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19210-DB
WA No. 313 of 2023
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
BANGLAORE - 560 044
9. SRI K RAJA REDDY
S/O K NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RA/T No.734, 2ND PHASE
GOKULA 1ST STAGE
HMT MAIN ROAD
DIVANARAPALYA
BANGALORE - 560 054
10. SRI K RAVI
S/O LATE KANNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT No.156/A, 7TH CROSS
GANESHA BLOCK
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 086
11. SMT. S USHA RANI
W/O SRI T SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RA/T No.232/19
13TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD
VYALIKAVAL
BANGALORE - 560 003
12. SRI K R SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O LATE K P RAMAN KUTTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT No.C-613
STERLING RESIDECNY
RMV 2ND STAGE
DOLLARS COLONY
BANGALORE - 560 094
13. SMT. SANGEETHA PANDURAJ
W/O PANDURAJ SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A NO 42/1, 1ST E MAIN ROAD
MATHIKERE EXTENSION
BANGALORE - 560 054
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:19210-DB
WA No. 313 of 2023
14. SMT. SANDHYA
D/O SRI A. SUBRAYA KARANTH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A No.1985, 1ST D MAIN ROAD
12TH A CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
RPC LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 040
15. SRI PRASADA SWAMY B N
S/O B M NAGAMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT No.9/1, LAKSHMI NILAYA
1ST MAIN ROAD
B K NAGAR, LIC COLONY
YESHWANTHPURA
BANGALORE - 560 022
16. SRI L. RAJANNA
S/O SRI LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT No.522, 5TH CROSS
3RD MAIN, SHANTHA VERI GOPALA
GOWDA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 072
17. SRI GURURAJ V PATIL
S/O V R PATIL
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A No.J-93, NEW No.10
1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS
PIPLELINE ROAD
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003
18. SRI B M VENUGOPAL
S/O LATE B K MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT No.1346, 8TH MAIN
11TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 086
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2)
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:19210-DB
WA No. 313 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 15/06/2021 IN WP
NO.15786/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT AND DISMISSED THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.Chetan Kumar for the appellant
and learned Additional Government Advocate Ms.Niloufer Akbar for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
15.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the petition
of the appellant-petitioner came to be disposed of by directing the
petitioner to submit a representation to the Registrar, City Civil
Court, Bengaluru, further requiring the Registrar to consider and
dispose of such representation in concurrence with the court
concerned.
3. The facts in the background are that the petitioner and one
Raghavendra jointly instituted Original Suit No.1141 of 2005 for
NC: 2024:KHC:19210-DB
declaration and for permanent injunction. The suit came to be
decreed by XLIII Additional City Civil Judge on 09.10.2013
declaring the plaintiff-petitioner to be the absolute owner of the suit
property and the defendants were restrained from interfering with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's suit
property.
3.1 The petitioner requested on 29.09.2020 the said
Sub-Registrar-respondent No.2 herein to incorporate the decree of
the court passed as aforesaid. Since respondent No.2 failed to
incorporate the decree of the court in the encumbrance register,
the petition was filed in which prayer was made to issue writ of
mandamus directing respondent No.2 to incorporate the judgment
and decree dated 09.10.2013 passed in the aforesaid suit in the
encumbrance register with respect to the registered sale deed, etc.
It was further prayed in the petition to set aside the registered sale
deed dated 20.12.2004.
4. Learned Single Judge, inter alia, referred to Sections 31 and
32 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was observed that the
authority was duty bound to communicate to the jurisdictional court
and that it was to be only a ministerial act. In that view, learned
NC: 2024:KHC:19210-DB
Single Judge issued directions to consider the representation of the
petitioner by the Registrar, City Civil Court within the stipulated
time.
5. The challenge to the impugned order is misconceived in law.
6. No error could be booked in the order passed by learned
Single Judge and the directions issued therein.
7. The present appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
