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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24296

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
SMT PUTTAMMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 2617/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2617 OF 2024 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN:

SMT PUTTAMMA W/O RANGAPPA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT THITTAHALLI VILLAGE, K.G.HALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560060.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MITHUN G A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO COURT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.

3. THE SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR BYATARAYANAPURA, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, B.B.M.P., WARD NO.8, NEAR BALAMURI GANAPATHI TEMPLE, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, TATANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560092

4. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION JAYANAGAR DISTRICT NO.4, OLD NO. 622/623, 3RD FLOOR, 10TH A MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.

5. SRI ANANTHARAJU V S/O LATE VEERARAGHAVA RAJU, AGED 78 YEARS, R/AT NO. 240/2A (OLD) 180(NEW)

IN FRONT OF ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, 13TH CROSS, I PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

6. SRI S.A.L. VINAY S/O V ANANTHARAJU, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 240/2A (OLD) 180(NEW)

IN FRONT OF ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, 13TH CROSS, I PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

7. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 8. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, R7 & R8 SRI. SUNDARAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ORDER DECLARING THAT SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. BYP-1-06582-2023-24 DATED 21/08/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS NULL AND VOID DOCUMENT. b) DIRECT THE R2 TO DELETE THE ENTRY MADE AS DOCUMENT NO. BYP-1-06582-2023-24 DATED 21/08/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR BYTARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU. C) DIRECT THE CONCERNED SUB-REGISTRAR TO DENOTE ON THE DOCUMENT NO. BYP-1-06582-2023-24 DATED 21/08/2023 VIDE ANNEUXRE-A AS NULL AND VOID AND D) SUBSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R1 TO INITIATE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST R3 AND 4 FOR HAVING COLLUDED WITH R5 AND 6 IN REGISTERING NULL AND VOID AND INVALID DOCUMENT NO. BYP-1-06582-2023-24 DATED 21/08/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PURSUANT TO THE ADJUDICATION DONE BY R4.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the registered Sale Deed registered as document No.BYP-1-06582-2023-24 dated 21.08.2023, produced as Annexure-A, is null and void and for a consequential direction to the second respondent–Sub-

Registrar to delete the entry bearing Document No.BYP-1- 06582-2023-24 dated 21.08.2023 from the records of the Sub-Registrar, Bytarayanapura, Bengaluru. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the second respondent to record/denote the said document as null and void in the register maintained in his office. A further relief is also sought against respondent No.1 to initiate departmental enquiry against respondent Nos.3 and 4 for their alleged collusion with respondent Nos.5 and 6 in registering the impugned sale deed, which according to the petitioner is ex-facie illegal and void.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition contends that respondent Nos.5 and 6, in active collusion and with the aid and assistance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the Senior Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar respectively, have orchestrated a fraudulent transaction in gross violation of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “Act 1908"). It is specifically alleged that an unregistered General Power of Attorney was improperly entertained and erroneously adjudicated, which was subsequently misused by respondent Nos.5 and 6 t

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