Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Shivalingappa v. The State Of Karnataka

Shivalingappa v. The State Of Karnataka

(High Court Of Karnataka (circuit Bench Of Kalaburagi))

WRIT PETITION NO.207626 OF 2017 (GM -RES) | 24-01-2023

1. Heard Sri.Ananth S.Jahagirdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.G.D.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus against the third respondent to consider the representations dated 11.02.2015, 21.11.2015 and 14.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner for issuance of fresh sale certificate, pursuant to purchase of the property bearing Sy.No.136/2/c of Kusnoor village, Kalaburagi district, in an auction.

3. Prayer is also made to quash the communication dated 06.02.2015 issued by second respondent-Senior SubRegistrar, Kalaburagi who refused to register the sale certificate dated 02.03.2010, pertaining to the above said property. The third prayer is to direct the second respondentthe Senior Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificate dated 02.03.2010 executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner in respect of the above said property.

4. The petitioner has purchased the property in a public auction held on 18.03.2009. In terms of the auction held on 17.02.2009, the bids were opened on 18.03.2009. The petitioner has emerged as a successful bidder. Pursuant to the auction, the sale certificate was issued in the name of the petitioner on 02.03.2010.

5. Later, it was noticed that by the time auction took place, the property which was under mortgage was transferred by the mortgagor in favour of his wife. Under these circumstances, the Bank in whose favour the property mortgaged, filed a suit in O.S.No.500/2010 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga. The said suit was decreed and registered sale deed dated 02.02.2009 executed by the mortgagor in favour of his wife was declared null and void and perpetual injunction was granted against defendants No.1 to 3 restraining them from claiming any right over the suit property.

6. Challenging the said judgment and decree, appeal in R.A.No.88/2013 was filed. The said appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2014 by Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Gulbarga.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not present the sale certificate for registration in view of the pendency of the civil suit and the original sale certificate was produced before the Civil Court and accordingly he could not present the sale certificate for registration within four months from the date of the issuance of sale certificate. After the disposal of the above said case, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the third respondent-Bank with a request to reissue the sale certificate pursuant to auction in which the petitioner was the successful bidder, as the registration of sale certificate dated 02.03.2010 was refused by the second respondent- Sub Registrar on the premise that the sale certificate is not presented for registration within four months from the date of issuance.

8. It is to be noticed that the delay in producing the sale certificate for registration is on account of pendency of civil suit to resolve the dispute arising from a third party claim. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner. Since, the bank itself has filed the civil suit seeking appropriate remedy, the bank is now under obligation to issue the fresh sale certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property which is auctioned and in which the petitioner is a successful bidder in terms of the auction held on 17.02.2009.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he does not press the remaining prayers in the writ petition. Accordingly, they are not considered.

10. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed in part.

11. The third respondent-Bank shall issue a fresh sale certificate in respect of the property covered under the certificate at Annexure-A within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12. If such sale certificate is presented for registration before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar within the time stipulated under the law, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall register the same, in accordance with law governing registration of sale certificate.

Advocate List
  • SRI ANANTH S.JAHAGIRDAR,

  • SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, SRI.G.D.KULKARNI.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/KarHC/2023/275
Head Note

A. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws — Auction sale — Sale certificate — Delay in producing sale certificate for registration — On account of pendency of civil suit to resolve dispute arising from third party claim — No fault on part of petitioner — Bank itself having filed civil suit seeking appropriate remedy, held, bank is now under obligation to issue fresh sale certificate in favour of petitioner in respect of property which is auctioned and in which petitioner is a successful bidder B. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws — Auction sale — Sale certificate — Registration of — Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar directed to register sale certificate in accordance with law governing registration of sale certificate, if presented for registration within time stipulated under law