Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court allowed a Writ Petition and quashed an endorsement issued by a Sub-Registrar who had refused to record the cancellation of a registered Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and General Power of Attorney (GPA).

The Court observed that the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to act upon a certified copy of a decree—on the pretext that the Court had not communicated it directly—constituted an abdication of statutory duty and a misapprehension of the law.

Emphasizing that the registering authority's role is purely ministerial, the Court issued mandatory guidelines for both civil courts and registration offices to ensure that judicial decrees are reflected in public records without causing unnecessary hardship to litigants.

The Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “The approach adopted by the Sub-Registrar, if accepted, would lead to a wholly untenable situation where the efficacy of a judicial decree becomes dependent upon the administrative convenience of a registering authority. Such a position is antithetical to the rule of law…When a certified copy of a decree cancelling a registered instrument is produced, the registering authority cannot refuse to act upon it merely on the ground that the decree was not separately communicated by the Court. Certified copies issued by courts carry statutory authenticity and must be treated as conclusive proof of the decree.”

Advocate Bhargava D Bhat appeared for the Petitioner, while AGA Navya Shekhar appeared for the Respondent.

A writ petition was filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 (Sub-registrar) to make necessary entries in the Encumbrance Register and Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the schedule property reflecting the cancellation of the Joint Development Agreement and the General Power of Attorney in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which declared the said documents terminated and unenforceable.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner executed the JDA and GPA in favor of a developer for a residential project; however, the developer failed to commence work or obtain approvals despite multiple reminders. Consequently, the petitioner instituted a suit, and the Commercial Court granted a decree in his favor after the developer remained ex-parte.

Despite the decree, the Sub-Registrar issued an endorsement refusing to update the records, claiming a lack of direct communication from the Court. Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioner approached this Court to set aside the endorsement and seek necessary directions.

Observations of the Court

The main issue for the consideration of the Court was whether the Sub-Registrar could have declined to act upon a decree of a competent civil court cancelling registered instruments merely on the ground that a formal communication from the Court was not received.

Under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Rule 123 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, the law mandated that registering authorities record the cancellation of instruments once a competent court declared them void. The Court observed that the Sub-Registrar's refusal to accept a certified copy of the decree reflected a complete misapprehension of the statutory scheme and constituted an abdication of duty.

“The function of the Sub-Registrar in such circumstances is purely ministerial. The registering authority cannot sit in appeal over the decree of a competent court nor can it insist upon procedural formalities which effectively render the decree nugatory”, the Court said.

The Court observed that failure on the part of civil courts to communicate decrees cancelling registered instruments to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, as contemplated under Section 31(2) of the Act, 1963, has far-reaching practical consequences. When such communication is not transmitted, the registering authorities often decline to record the cancellation in the relevant registers and indexes, citing the absence of formal intimation from the Court.

This results in a situation where, notwithstanding a valid and binding decree declaring the instrument void or cancelled, the public records maintained in the registration office continue to reflect the document as subsisting, it said.

The Court held that the Sub-Registrar’s role in such matters was purely ministerial and that a certified copy served as conclusive proof of a judicial order. It noted with concern that the failure of civil courts to communicate decrees directly led to a flood of avoidable writ petitions, unnecessarily burdening the constitutional courts. To remedy this, the Court issued specific guidelines requiring all civil courts to transmit decrees to Sub-Registrars within four weeks and directed Sub-Registrars to update records promptly, even when presented with a certified copy by a party.

Directions passed by the Court

For Civil Courts, it directed that in suits where a registered document is declared void, cancelled, or terminated, all civil courts and commercial courts in the State shall ensure the following:

a) Whenever a decree is passed cancelling or declaring void a registered instrument relating to immovable property, the Court shall direct the office to transmit a copy of the decree to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar in whose office the document was registered.

b) The communication shall ordinarily be sent within four weeks from the date of the decree.

c) The communication shall clearly mention the document number, the date of registration, the book and volume, and the nature of the document cancelled.

d) The decree transmitted shall be accompanied by a covering communication requesting the Sub-Registrar to make necessary entries in the relevant register and indexes in terms of Section 31(2) of the Act, 1963 and Rule 123 of the 1965 Rules.

For all Sub-registrars in the State, the Court passed the following directions:

a) Whenever a decree cancelling a registered document is communicated by a civil court, the Sub-Registrar shall make the required entries in the relevant register and indexes within four weeks of receipt of such communication.

b) Even in cases where no formal communication is received from the Court, if a party produces a certified copy of the judgment and decree declaring the registered instrument as cancelled or void, the Sub-Registrar shall not refuse to act upon the decree.

c) In such cases, the Sub-Registrar shall verify the authenticity of the certified copy and thereafter record the cancellation in the relevant registers and indexes in accordance with the Rule 123 of the 1965 Rules.

d) The registering authority shall not insist upon separate orders of the High Court or any other authority once a competent civil court has declared the document to be void or cancelled.

e) The role of the Sub-Registrar in such cases being ministerial, the authority shall not adjudicate upon the correctness or validity of the decree.

Accordingly, the Court said that the refusal by the Sub-Registrar to give effect to the decree passed was wholly unsustainable in law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.

Cause Title: Mr. Antony Damy K v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:17065]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Bhargava D Bhat

Respondents: AGA Navya Shekhar

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: