IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30231 OF 2024 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH T P.

S/O LATE PATEL PALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT THOVINAKERE VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE 572227

2. SMT. UMADEVI, W/O SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT THOVINAKERE VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE-572227. 3. SRI RAVICHANDRA, S/O SIDDALINGAIAH T.P. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT THOVINAKERE VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE-572227.

4. T.S. TEJESWINI, D/O SIDDALINGAIAH T.P. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT THOVINAKERE VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE-572227.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. YESHU BABA R MISHRA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 5600 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, Y.T. ROAD, ABOVE CANARA BANK, TURUVEKERE-572 227.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORESMENT / COMMUNICATION DATED 01.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-2 BEARING NO. UNOKA/TU.KE/01/2023-24 (VIDE ANNX-A); DIRECT THE R-2 TO REGISTER THE FINAL DECREE IN OS NO. 40/2020 DATED 19.12.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TURVEKERE (VIDE ANNX-F).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners are parties to a final decree dated 24.11.2021 in O.S. No.40/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere [for short 'the civil Court']. The civil Court has drawn the decree on an application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The compromise decree is presented for registration under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 [for short, 'the Act'].

2. The second respondent has issued the impugned Endorsement dated 01.04.2024 [Annexure- A] stating that because the decree is presented for registration beyond the period of four months as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, the document cannot be presented for registration. Sri Anoop Haranahalli, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt Saritha Kulkarni, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

3. Indeed, Section 23 of the Act reads that a document [other than a Will] shall not be accepted for registration beyond four months from the date of its execution. The proviso to this section also stipulates how four months must be reckoned. The question, i.e., whether the second respondent has justifiably issued the impugned Endorsement must be considered in the light of the petitioner's case that the timeline under Section 23 of the Act cannot be made applicable to the documents that are not compulsorily registerable.

4. The Section 17[2][vi] of the Act list a decree of a Court as one of those documents to which sub-sections 1[a] and 1[b] of Section 17 of the Act would not apply. It would follow from this that a compromise decree would not compulsorily require registration. This Court, by order dated 17.12.2021 in the Company Application in No.65/2016 while considering whether the timelines must be held to be mandatory, has opined thus:

"9. Under identical circumstances, the Madras High Court in the decisions referred to supra has come to the conclusion that since registration of the said decree is only optional, time limit of four months prescribed under Section 23 is only optional and not mandatory. As held by the Madras High Court, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 23 is not applicable to the subject decree particularly when registration of the same is optional and not compulsory and accordingly, there is no bar for this Court to direct registration of the