IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN:

1. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O. HANUMAIAH (LATE)

NO.416, 17^TH CROSS SARASWATHI NAGAR VIJAYANAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560 040.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI N.S. VIJAYANTH BABU, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN AND:

Location:

High Court of Karnataka 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION KANDAAYA BHAWAN, 8^TH FLOOR K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR DISTRICT NO. 623, NO.4, 10^TH C-MAIN ROAD

4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011.

3. S. CHANDRU

51 YEARS S/O. SHIVANNA NO. 1215, BEML III STAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 098.

4. SHANKARLAL M PATEL

56 YEARS S/O. MAVJI BHAI PATEL NO.633, RAJESHWARI PRASIDDHI

25^TH CROSS

36^TH MAIN ROAD RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.09.2025 PASSED IN W.P. No.192/2025 (GM-ST/RN) AND ALLOW THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 17.09.2025 [impugned order] passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.192/2025 (GM-ST/RN).

2. The appellant had preferred the said writ petition, inter alia praying that directions be issued to respondent No.2 to take action in exercise of powers under Section 22-C of the Registration (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2023 and to cancel the sale deed of the subject property registered in favour of respondent No.4, as the same is a forged document. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the said petition, albeit with an observation that the dismissal would be without prejudice to the right of the appellant to prosecute the suit for decisions on all aspects of the controversy.

3. The appellant states that he filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 20.12.2001 in respect of the land measuring 14 acres 28 guntas, falling in Survey No. 71 of Dodderi Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was executed in the appellant's favour by one Basappa and six others. The said suit (being O.S.No.364/2014) is pending adjudication before the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Magadi, Ramanagara District. The appellant is arrayed as plaintiff No.2 in the said suit. The appellant claims that during the pendency of the said suit, the defendants (Basappa and 6 others), who had executed a sale agreement dated 20.12.2001, sold the subject property to respondent No.3 by a sale deed dated 20.06.2014. The said respondent was arrayed as defendant No.8 in the said suit.

4. The appellant claims that on 30.11.2017, the Trial Court had passed an order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining respondent No. 3 (Defendant No.8) in the suit from selling the suit property during the pendency of the said suit. An entry regarding the said order was also made in RTC (pahani) pertaining to the suit property. The appellant claims that on 15.07.2022, he became aware that respondent No.3 was attempting to dispose of the suit property in violation of the stay order granted by the Trial Court. The appellant alleges that respondent No.3 had colluded with the officials of respondent No.2 and executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.4 which was registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar as Document No.

8353 / 2023-24.

5. It is the appellant's case that in terms of the provisions of Section 22-C of the Registration (Karnataka Amendment) Act,