The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sale deed may not be binding on a petitioner if an earlier purchase of the property is proven, and the Court has the authority to direct the registration authority to make a note reflecting the Court's declaration in the relevant registers and the encumbrance certificate.

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

1. The petitioner contends that he is the purchaser of a site bearing No. 32 carved out of Sy. No. 58 of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 40 ft. and North to South 44 ft. from Malla alias Mallaiah represented by his general power of attorney holder K. Nanjegowda under a deed of sale at Annexure-A, dated 10-6-1989. It appears that Malla alias Mallaiah represented by his general power of attorney holder C.R. Chandra sold the said site under a deed of sale dated 7-7-2006 in favour of the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit O.S. No. 6754 of 2007 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore City for a declaration that the sale deed dated 7-7-2006 is not binding on him. The suit was dismissed on 10-12-2009. The petitioner challenged the decree by filing an appeal in RFA No. 219 of 2010 before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree by declaring that the right, if any, claimed by defendants 1 to 8, 9 and 11 in the suit (L.Rs. of Malla alias Mallaiah) in respect of the property in question based on the sale deed dated 7-7-2006 is not binding on the plaintiff/petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that after the purchase of the property by the third respondent, an entry was made in the encumbrance certificate at Annexure-E showing the name of the third respondent in column (6). Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the second respondent to delete the said entry.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has purchased the property in question under Annexure-A sale deed dated 10-6-1989 from Malla alias Mallaiah represented by his general power of attorney holder K. Nanjegowda. The third respondent purchased the same property from Malla alias Mallaiah represented by his general power of attorney holder C.R. Chandra on 7-7-2006. Since the petitioner had purchased the property much earlier to the date of purchase of the said property by the third respondent, the third respondent cannot get any right, title or interest in respect of the said property. On the basis of the sale deed dated 7-7-2006, an entry was made in the encumbrance certificate showing that the third respondent is the purchaser of the property, which is erroneous. This entry needs to be deleted having regard to the declaratory decree granted by this Court in RFA No. 219 of 2010, dated 11-9-2012.

4. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 ('Act' for short) or in the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 ('Rules' for short) for deletion/cancellation of an entry in the encumbrance certificate. At best, an additional entry can be made reflecting the declaratory decree passed by this Court having regard to Rule 123 of the Rules.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

6. It is evident from the materials on record that the petitioner had purchased the property under a deed of sale at Annexure-A, dated 10-6-1989 from Malla alias Mallaiah represented by his general power of attorney holder K. Nanjegowda. It is also clear that the third respondent purchased the same property under a deed of sale dated 7-7-2006 from Malla alias Mallaiah represented by his general power of attorney holder C.R. Chandra. That is why the petitioner filed a civil suit O.S. No. 6754 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 7-7-2006 is not binding on him as he had already purchased the property on 10-6-1989 from Malla alias Mallaiah. Since the suit is dismissed, the petitioner filed an appeal RFA No. 219 of 2010 before this Court challenging the said decree. This Court allowed the appeal on 11-9-2012 and set aside the judgment and decree in O