Synopsis

The petitioner obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property. The judgment‑debtor failed to cooperate in executing the sale deed. The Executing Court appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the sale deed on behalf of the judgment‑debtor. However, the District Registrar refused to register the sale deed on the ground that E‑khata (an electronic property record) was not available. The High Court quashed the refusal, holding that administrative authorities cannot create procedural hurdles that render a decree inexecutable. The court issued detailed guidelines for executing courts, municipal bodies, and registering authorities to ensure that decrees for specific performance are effectively enforced even when the judgment‑debtor deliberately abstains from cooperating.

Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 22nd April 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 28856 of 2025 (NC:2026:KHC:22211)

Core Law: Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 (execution of decree for specific performance); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, Rule 34 (execution of decree for specific performance); Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17, 32; Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act / Karnataka Municipalities Act – E-khata requirements.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of karnataka at bengaluru

Writ petition no. 28856 of 2025 (gm-st/rn)

Mr. p. s. ashok kumar (petitioner) vs. The district registrar & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice sachin shankar magadum

Date: 22nd april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Specific relief act, 1963 – section 28 (power to direct execution of decree for specific performance)

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – order xxi rule 34 (execution of decree for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property)

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.