SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440953

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
MANJUNATH S/O NARAYAN GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 106079/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO. 106079 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

MANJUNATH S/O NARAYAN GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/AT GUDDESHIRGOD,

POST. SARKULI, TQ. SIDDAPUR,

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581450.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI.MANU R. HEGDE AND

SRI. RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

M.S.BUILDING,

BENGALURU 560001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

RAKESH

SIRSI SUB DIVISION, TQ. SIRSI

S

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581401.

HARIHAR

Digitally signe d 3. THE TAHSILDAR SIRSI TALUK

by RAKESH S

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581401.

HARIHAR

Date: 2025.12.11

16:39:19 +0530 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR SIRSI TALUK

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581401

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DTD. 02.06.2025 BRG.NO. RRT/E-98756/25 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND

EQUITY AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

A) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned communication dtd: 02.06.2025 brg. No. RRT/E-98756/25 vide Annexure-F issued by respondent No.2, in the interest of justice and equity.

B) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dtd: 19.07.2025 brg.No.RRT/Pahani Tiddupadi/ViVa-147/2024-25-E- 73381-25 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-G, in the interest of justice and equity.

C) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dtd: 25.07.2025 brg. No. UNoKaShi/ 45/2025-26 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-H, in the interest of justice and equity.

D) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to Register the sale certificate issued by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, in Execution Case No. 89/2015, dated 03.12.2022 vide Annexure-A without insisting on the presence of the judgment debtors in of the terms of Section 89 (2) of the Registration Act 1908, in the interest of justice and equity.

E) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 and 3 to enter the name of the Petitioner, into the revenue records in respect of properties in brg.Sy. No. 70/4 measuring 33 guntas and Sy. No. 72/3 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Neralavalli village, Sampakhand hobli, Sirsi taluk, in the interest of justice and equity.

F) Pass such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra V. Bhat and Sri.Manu R. Hegde, appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA-Sri.T.Hanumareddy, appearing for respondents.

3. The petitioner purchased land in Survey No.72 measuring 5 acres and 11 guntas in a Court auction. The Court of the Civil Judge, Sirsi, issued a certificate of sale in favour of the petitioner in Execution Case No.89 of 2015. The petitioner sought registration of the sale certificate before respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.4 rejected the request of the petitioner on the score that the application could not be processed as it was not a compromise decree.

4. Respondent No.4 further rejected the request on the score that limitation under Section 23 has expired and therefore, the document could not be registered. This rejection is called into question before this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) does not contemplate for any limitation under Section 23 of the Limitation Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top