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.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The Petitioners in W.P.No.40198/2014 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Call for the records pertaining to the sale notice dated 21.07.2014 at Annexure-A published in Shakthi Daily having circulation in Kodagu District.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ Quashing the sale notice dated 21.07.2014 vide Annexure-A published in Shakthi Daily dated 31.07.2014 in so far as the property belonging to the petitioners more fully described in the Schedule hereunder situated at Maragodu Village, Madikeri Taluk, to an extent of 5 acres.

c. Pass such other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioners in W.P.No.3853/2024 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the R1 to R3 to execute te registered sale deed in favour of petitioner as per representation dated 28.08.2014 (Annexure-J) made by the petitioner under the provisions of 38(4) of the KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT .

b. Pass such other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

Facts in WP No.40198/2014:

3. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners in possession of property bearing Sy.No.1/98 measuring 5 acres of Maragodu village, Madikeri taluk, Kodagu district and purchased the same under a sale deed dated 09.04.2014, which earlier belonged to Smt.D.Komalakshi, who had acquired the same under a registered gift deed dated 29.09.2001. It is claimed that the property was originally purchased by one D.Rajkumar, husband of D.Komalakshi, under a sale deed dated 16.08.1995. The said D.Rajkumar had executed a registered gift deed on 29.09.2001 in favour of D.Komalakshi. The petitioners claim that the sale deed in their favour has been executed by both the donor and the donee, the petitioners have purchased the property after due verification of the documents, and as such, they are bona fide purchasers for consideration. The only amount which were due was to the Indian Overseas Bank, Madikeri branch, which has been paid; apart from that, there is no other encumbrance which has been found in the encumbrance certificate, and it is in that background that the petitioners are before this Court challenging the auction notification. This Court had directed the auction to go on, but stayed the confirmation of the sale.

FACTS IN WP 3853/2024:

4. The petitioner claims to be a company that had entered into an agreement of sale with D.Rajkumar and Smt.D.Komalakshi, in pursuance of which the petitioner had issued a public notice on 10.01.2014 inviting claims or objections, there being no claim except from one Mr.K.S.Ganapathi. The petitioner has entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 1.04.2013, agreeing to purchase the same for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- towards which K.S.Ganapathi has consented, he having received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. Submission of Sri. Venkatesh R.Bhagat, learned Counsel for the petitioners in WP No.40198 of 2014 is that:

5.1. The petitioners are bona fide purchasers for consideration, having no information about any attachment. There is no encumbrance which has been reflected in the encumbrance certificate. The only amount due to Indian Overseas Bank, Medikeri, has been paid, and a discharge deed has been executed by the bank; there is no one else whose claim is reflected in the public documents. The petitioners, having come across an auction notification of the property belonging to the petitioners, are before this