Karnataka High court issues directions on e-khata issuance to bridge 'systemic grey area' in decree enforcement

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has held that the competent local authority cannot deny issuance of e-khata solely on the ground that the application has not been filed by the original owner or judgment-debtor. The court observed that in such situations, e-khata may be issued either in the name of the original owner/judgment-debtor, i.e., the party who lost the suit, or in the name of the Court Commissioner representing the judgment-debtor, strictly for the limited purpose of executing the decree and ensuring compliance.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said this while issuing directions to bridge the "systemic grey area" and to ensure that decrees for specific performance (contractual obligations) issued by courts are effectively enforced in property/land litigation cases. In the case at hand, the District Registrar of Tumakuru had refused to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the decree holder, for want of e-katha.

The court said that when the property in question requires e-khata as a pre-condition for registration, the Executing Court may, either suo motu or on an application by the decree holder, direct the competent local authority to process issuance of e-khata for the limited purpose of facilitating execution of the decree.

The court further said that the competent authority shall permit the decree holder to remit arrears of property tax, if any, without insisting upon payment by the judgment-debtor. The court said e-khata shall be issued within a time-bound period, not exceeding two weeks from the date of application or compliance, and that the decree holder is at liberty to recover the dues paid by him from the judgment-debtor in appropriate proceedings.

Justice Magadum said that the registering authority shall treat the sale deed, executed by a Court Commissioner pursuant to orders of the Executing Court, on par with the sale deed executed by the judgment-debtor himself and shall not insist on the personal presence or consent of the judgment-debtor. “All authorities shall bear in mind that their role is to act in aid of the decree and not to create impediments that would defeat the enforcement of a lawful adjudication,” the court said.

Justice Magadum said, “This Court cannot lose sight of the practical reality that in a vast majority of cases involving decrees for specific performance, the judgment-debtor, having suffered an adverse decree, deliberately abstains from participating in execution proceedings."

It added, "Such calculated inaction is not innocuous; it is often a stratagem to frustrate the decree. When the statutory framework mandates E-khata as a pre-condition for registration of sale deeds, the judgment-debtor’s failure to secure E-khata places him in an undue advantageous position, while the decree holder despite succeeding before a competent Civil Court is left remediless. This anomalous situation strikes at the very root of the rule of law, for a decree that cannot be executed is a mere paper decree.”