IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION *NOs.9464/2018 & 10740/2018 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN:
PUTTASIDDAMMA W/O DODDANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NANJEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 571401.
(By MR. VEERESHA K, ADV. FOR ON BEHALF OF MR. H B CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. MANGALAMMA W/O S.M. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT SUNDAHALLI KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 571401.
2. CHANDRAMMA W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT RAYASHETTIPURA BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-571401.
3. THE TAHSILDAR MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA-571401.
4. THE SUB-REGISTRAR MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA – 571401.
(By MR. V SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R3 & R4 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 & R2) * Corrected vide Chambers Order dated 31-7-2019 … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS *THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 01.10.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MANDYA REFERRING THE FINAL DECREE DRAWN IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER AND HER MOTHER IN FDP NO.09/2006 TO THE SUB-REGISTRAR, MANDYA TO GET IT REGISTERED IN THEIR NAME VIDE NO.1362/15 AND 1379/15 PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND D AND QUASH THE SAME DECLARING THAT THE REGISTRATION ARE NOT REQUIRED; AND ETC.
*THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Veeresha K., learned counsel for Mr.H.B.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.V.Shiva Reddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The *petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In *these petitions, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to quash the order dated 01.10.2015 passed * Corrected vide Chambers Order dated 31-7-2019 by the Principal Civil Judge, JMFC at Mandya referring the final decree to the Sub-Registrar to get it registered and a mandamus to respondent No.3 to make out the khata in the name of the petitioner in respect of the properties which the petitioner has received under FDP No.9/2006 and under the Will dated 06.07.2007.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a decree for partition has been passed on merits in favour of the petitioner and the decree is not required to be compulsorily registered. Therefore, the impugned order is per se without jurisdiction. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader has supported the order passed by the Trial Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that nothing contained under Clause (b) and (c) of sub-
Section (1) to Section 17 of the Act applies to any decree or order of the Court except the compromise decree. In the instant case, admittedly, no compromise decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the decree does not require registration, cannot be accepted.
6. Accordingly, the *petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.4 for registration of the decree. Upon registration of the shares of the petitioner granted to her under the decree, the Tahsildar shall take action for preparation of khata in the name of the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE RV * Corrected vide Chambers Order dated 31-7-2019