Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shanthalakshmi vs Smt. K. Varalakshmamma on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44836
WP No. 25246 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 25246 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTHALAKSHMI
W/O BALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT ADARSHA NURSING HOME,
SHARADADEVINAGARA,
TUMAKURU 572 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. K. VARALAKSHMAMMA
W/O T.H.LAKSHMIKANTHA,
AGED BAOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NAGAVALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed HEBBURU HOBLI 572 120
by
MARKONAHALLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2 STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RANSA VASANTHI D.L., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA, PRAYING TO ORDERS TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE 3RD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44836
WP No. 25246 of 2024
PASSED IN EX. NO. 65/2014, PASSED ON IA FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, PASSED IN THE
ORDER SHEET, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND THEREBY ALLOW THE
IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC,
VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The decree holder in Ex.No.65/2024 dated 14.08.2024
passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru has filed
this petition challenging an order dated 14.08.2024 by which an
application filed by her under section 151 of CPC was rejected.
2. A suit in O.S.No.1540/2011 was filed for specific
performance of agreement of sale dated 20.12.2008. The suit
was decreed and an execution petition was filed in
Ex.P.No.65/2014. The executing court after accepting the sale
deed furnished by the decree holder issued a Commissioner
warrant to register the document before the office of the Sub
Registrar. When the document was placed before the Sub-
Registrar, Tumakuru, they refused to accept the said document
on the ground that a survey sketch in Form 11-E was not
furnished. Therefore the decree holder filed an application
NC: 2024:KHC:44836
under section 151 of CPC for a direction to the Sub-Registrar,
Tumakuru to accept the document without insisting for a
survey sketch in Form 11-E. It was contended that the sketch
in Form 11-E can be prepared only when the Judgment debtor
signs the prescribed form for drawing up of survey. The
executing Court after considering the law declared by this court
in W.P.No.103813/2021 held that the Sub-Registrar cannot
insist the parties to produce 11-E sketch while registering the
document yet, the executing court rejected the application filed
by the decree holder. Being aggrieved by the order passed by
the trial court, the decree holder is before this court in this writ
petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the decree holder contends that
once the executing Court was convinced that the survey sketch
in Form 11-E was not necessary for registering the document,
the executing Court ought to have directed the Sub-Registrar,
Tumakuru to register the document.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the
other hand contends that the executing Court has accepted the
position of law. However she contends that since the law is
NC: 2024:KHC:44836
declared by this court, the executing Court felt it unnecessary
to issue a fresh direction to the Sub-Registrar, Tumakuru.
5. This court in W.P.No.103813/2021 while considering
the question whether a survey sketch in Form 11-E is a
mandatory document for registering a document, held as
follows:
"Insofar relief (a) sought for by the
petitioner is concerned, as rightly contended by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the
light of the decisions of this court in Ramachar
and Vaishali's case supra, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned
endorsement dated 21.09.2021 issued by the
respondent No.2 is clearly illegal, arbitrary and
without jurisdiction or authority of law and the
same deserves to be quashed and necessary
directions are to be issued to respondent
No.2/Sub-Registrar to handover the registered
sale deed dated 18.12.2010 to the petitioner
without insisting upon production of '11E'
sketch by the petitioner.
Besides this a requisition to conduct a survey and
demarcate the boundaries that is the subject matter of a
document, should be made by both the parties. Since the
defendant has contested the suit, he cannot be expected to sign
the request for a survey and a sketch in Form 11-E.
6. The Sub-Registrar, Tumakuru was bound to register
the document without insisting for the survey sketch in Form
NC: 2024:KHC:44836
11-E. Therefore, the Executing Court must have allowed the
application filed by the decree holder with a direction to the
Sub-Registrar, Tumakuru to register the document without
insisting for a survey sketch in Form 11-E.
7. In that view of the matter, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
This writ petition is Allowed. The impugned order in
Ex.No.65/2024 dated 14.08.2024 passed by the III Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakauru is set aside. The Sub-
Registrar, Tumakuru is directed to register the document
submitted by the decree holder without insisting for a survey
sketch in Form 11-E.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
TS
