2025 KHC 44339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Smt Jayanthi S Shetty – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Co Operative – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 27349 OF 2024 (CS-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 28076 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Sri. Ashok Haranahalli., Sr. Advocate For Sri. Ajith A Shetty., Advocate
For the Respondent : Sri. Yogesh D. Naik., Aga, Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar., Sr. Advocate For Sri. N. Goutham Raghunath., Advocate, Sri. Jaykumar S. Patil., Sr. Advocate For Sri. Rajesh Shettigar., Advocate, Sri. Vittal Shetty., Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek to set aside multiple orders. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. arguments contesting the validity of mortgages and agency. (Para 16 , 17 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. judgment against the legality of mortgages executed by the power of attorney. (Para 27 , 29 , 31) |
| 4. court's approval of auction sales and legal authority of banks. (Para 36 , 38 , 39) |
| 5. writ petitions are dismissed as an abuse of court process. (Para 40) |
ORDER :
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
1. The Petitioners in W.P.No.27349/2024 are before this court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the order dated 02nd September, 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation in Revision Petition/Appeal No. CO:31:CAP:2014, as per Annexure-X to this writ petition;
b. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the order dated 03rd January, 2013 passed by R3 in Appeal No.05/2012-13, as per Annexure-W to this Writ Petition;
c. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the awards dated 03rd January, 2004, passed in Dispute Numbers 1049/2003-04 and 1050/2003-04, passed by R2 as per Annexure-E and F respectively, to this writ petition.
d. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the auction sale dated 15th December, 2004 in CEP NO.467/2004-05 and CEP NO. 468/2004-04 in favour of R10 as per Annexure-G and H respectively.
e. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the confirmation of sale dated 01st September, 2005 as per Annexure-J made in favour of R10;
f. Grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to grant under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioners in W.P.No.28076/2024 are before this court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the order dated 02nd September, 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation in Revision Petition/Appeal No. CO:32:CAP:2014, as per Annexure-X to this writ petition;
b. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the order dated 13th February, 2014 passed by R3 in Appeal No.02/2013-14, as per Annexure-M to this Writ Petition;
c. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the awards dated 24th March, 2003, passed in Dispute Numbers 412/2002-03, passed by R2 as per Annexure-G, to this writ petition.
d. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the auction sale dated 20th September, 2007 made in Execution Petition No.CEP 39/2023-04;
e. Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the confirmation of sale dated 05th November, 2007 as per Annexure-H made in favour of R10;
f. Grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to grant under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity.
Facts in WP No.27349/2024.
3. The Petitioners claim to be the children of late Sadashiva Shetty. They claim that the lands in survey No. 127/6, 130/14, 130/3, 127/3 and 126/4 of Shivalli village, Udupi Taluk and District belonged to the ancestors of late Sadashiva Shetty on a leasehold basis.
4. With the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1971, the maternal uncle of late Sadashiva Shetty, namely Sri. Ellappa Shetty had put forth a claim for grant of occupancy rights, which was granted on 12.10.1981. Subsequently, a deed of partition came to be executed on 22.05.1990 between the family members, namely Ms Sunanda Shetty and Sadashiva Shetty, whereunder the lands bearing Survey Nos.130/3, 126/4, and 126/3, measuring 2 acres 32 cents/guntas, were allotted to Sadashiva Shetty, who had by then relocated himself from Udupi to Surat in Gujarat. There was an error in the order of the Land Tribunal; by mistake, the land in survey No.127/6 was mentioned, which was to be replaced with Survey No.126/5.
5. A general power of attorney was executed on15.04.1998 by late Sadashiva Shetty in favour of Vamana Baliga in respect of the aforesaid property.
6. In pursuance of the aforesaid p




Shri J. Ramaraj S/o Sri.Jyothi Raj vs Iliyaz Khan S/o Janab Mohammed Ismail
S.Chattanatha Karayalar –vs- The Central Bank of India Ltd.
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
The power of attorney authorized the attorney to mortgage the property, creating a binding mortgage valid against the family's claims, even if the borrowing parties did not own the property.
A sale officer may proceed to sell a defaulter's properties other than mortgaged property in applying for debt recovery if suitable under the cooperative society's regulations.
A fraudulent gift deed executed after the initiation of surcharge proceedings is invalid, and subsequent transactions cannot confer title, as they occur during pending enforcement actions.
Sale of property under mortgage invalid when prior encumbrances are ignored, highlighting the need for equitable operations in financial transactions.
The main legal point established is that a declaratory decree entitles a party to seek redressal of their legal rights, and a society is obligated to execute a sale deed in compliance with such a dec....
(1) Sale of an immovable property has to be for a price – Price may be payable in future – It may be partly paid and remaining part can be made payable in future.(2) A document which is void need not....
Registered Power of Attorney presumed valid under S.114(e) Evidence Act unless fraud specifically pleaded and proved; lack of Tamil literacy and attesting witness ignorance insufficient to invalidate....
Court affirmed the validity of sales under execution, emphasizing the importance of timely objections and statutory adherence in contesting such actions.
An agent must act in the principal's best interests; unauthorized sales executed under a power of attorney without consent are fraudulent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.