IN THE HIGH count or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY or SEPTEMBER 20
serous :
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANTA..wAjGo'd.t§A.R it
wan Pernzow No.31334/rabid'(csnzeswnilsirl V
Between 1
Srnt. C. Renuka @ Renuka Devi '
W/0 Harsha Kurnar
Aged about 31 years
R/a immadihallé Village
Whitefield Post V
K.R. Puram 3-Eobli _ _
Bangalore East " ..Petitioner
(By M/s. Mylaraiai.n,A.ssociat'e:si,'Ad-v.,j'g
And i , _ _ _ _ .
The SeniorSu'bjReg_istrar"~~.,,_:"'
Mahadevapuha V .
No.304,,- Outer "Ci_rcl'e Road
..White~fife|d,l"Bangal'o~re§_§§. . . Respondent
'=.(5~,{fsni'sip-sh§'ha__pur, AGA.,)
;f"nis"V.Wri't Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
Consti_ti,ition of India praying to direct the senior Sub-
. ' Registrar, Mahadevapura, Bangalore to register the sale deed
gd'arted_ 9.2.2009 presented as per Annexure--D in accordance
--(with: decree dated 9.1.2006 passed in O.S.No.282-5/2005 by
"'=.tif}_e7II Addi. Civii Judge (Senior Division) Bangalore Rural
"District as per Annexure--B.
'7
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a direction to the,”‘Sub~
Registrar, Mahadevapura, Bangalore, to register….the”‘t?iale_
Deed dated 9.2.2009 vide Annexure-‘ 0′ in aeedr.da’ri’ce’i’»{dt:{f
the decree dated 9.1.2006 passed .:7’i{o’.’s.Nd.282AS_f2_0.05:”‘b§/’r,
the learned EI Addl.Civi| Eudge (Sr.’D_n’.’,,). Bangi_aiA’0vre
District, Bangalore.
2. The records red/.i.=;?a_|, vVtheffp’eti,tioner had filed
o.s.No.2.82s/2e~0}3s odEi,4″t:d.é”tj’,le eiieamed IE Addl.Civil Judge
(Sr.{)n.),zflalrzgalore”lvlftural..:xDis~trict, Bangalore, for relief of
specific,_perform,ari~ce’– b’ase”d on agreement of sale. A
took p”Ea(fe”‘pursuant to the compromise petiton
da.téd.’_”7e..i:’;42:DtJ’6~..:”tultirnately, the decree was passed on
9.1.’2Q’O6 p1.i’rs’::..ia’;nt to the compromise. Thereafter, a draft
ll”~.~.._S’a,le deed, Was submitted by the petitioner before the Court
Execution Petlton No.28/2008. Pursuant thereto,
V.”–..”vAt’he’?Court by its letter dated 24.2.2009 directed the Sub-
VS
,3,
Registrar/respondent for registering the same. The Sub-
Registrar has issued an endorsement dated 25.2.2009 c._a__iiing
upon the petitioner to produce the certified copy_”o,l’f”~«.th.e
pahani etc., as per Annexure~’E’. The pe-,tr:tione’r~,,”‘has ‘
produced certain documents. E-lowe\/;ei=,..t,he isaiei”deedV”is’_jnot, V
yet registered. Hence, this writ petition lf’i’lVedl_’~.
3. The statement of objectVi’io..n’s are fVi’!ed:”by’ the learned
Government Advocate bring-i._ng toultheljnyotice of the Court that
the property bearing Survey not exist in
Immadihaiii villa’g’e’;5,”According: to .|.e.arned Government
Aclvocate,”‘tehe”p.ropert:y’bearirig Sttrvey No.38/1 is situated at
V Hagadur village’vehicvlils’can-».i.n.dependent viilage. Since the
property_wasl”no’t eA>t_lste”nce in Irnmadihalii village, the
not regvisteted by the Sub–Registrar as on this
lC’ia:v: gt 1 ”
Thgislrijolurt does not find any error in the action of
the respondent in not registering the Sale Deed, inasmuch
.Su’r’=,rey No.38/1 is not existing in Immadihaili viilage.
VV””i..__eA’cco%rding to the petitioner, innmadihaiii viilage as well as
3-4
-4-
Hagadur viiiage are one and the same and that therefore,
there was no hurdle for the Srrb–Registrar to register the
same. Be that as it may, the same question nee_dsVV_:’t.oi~.be
gone into before the Civil Court and decree
amended. Hence, this Court deciinesm to ea’3.te’r’ta.i:I’;,this”wri_t’
petition as the same is passed on dis_prrt’ec!..:q:}:e.sti.o’ns
Accordingty, the foiiowing orders’iVis«…madVe’~.:
Writ petition is disrrs1issed.p____i:i’_t..i_si o_pen..fo*r_thAe petitioner
to approach the Civii Cotir”t.’wi_hicih:V ._the decree, for
amendment of the de.c’ree,f i’f*_f:i_e’ .Vsod”.;’:hooses. The
observations made:’ddurVing..svthe thiswovrder shall not
influence the Civil Court.«. V