The Karnataka High Court recently held that the absence of e-Khata cannot be a ground to obstruct execution of a decree of specific performance. [PS Ashok Kumar v. District Registrar].Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held,"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. 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.".The petitioner had obtained a decree of specific performance of a contract and an execution order. The executing court appointed a court commissioner to execute the sale deed. The Registrar, however, refused to register the sale deed, insisting upon an e-Khata..The Court observed that a decree for specific performance is a binding judicial command enforceable in law."The executive authorities, including the municipal bodies and the registering authorities, cannot be permitted to adopt a hyper-technical or pedantic approach so as to defeat the fruits of a decree. Their obligation is not merely regulatory but also facilitative when acting in aid of judicial orders. The absence of a clear administrative protocol in such cases has resulted in inconsistent practices, thereby necessitating judicial intervention to fill the void and lay down workable guidelines.".Justice Magadum noted the disconnect between the judiciary, administration and executive leading to a procedural deadlock."in declining to facilitate execution of a decree for specific performance on the ground of non-issuance of E-khata, is wholly unsustainable both in law and on first principles governing execution of decrees. The situation that has repeatedly surfaced before this Court discloses a systemic incongruity a grey area in the administrative framework wherein the executive machinery, instead of acting in furtherance of a binding judicial determination, operates in a manner that effectively renders the decree inexecutable.".To address recurring issues in similar cases, the Court laid down the following guidelines:Executing courts shall appoint a court commissioner to execute the sale deed on behalf of the judgment debtor. Where 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 competent local authority shall not refuse issuance of E-khata merely on the ground that the application is not made by the original owner/judgment-debtor. If there are arrears of property tax or any statutory dues payable in respect of the property, the competent authority shall quantify the same and permit the decree holder to remit such dues without insisting upon payment by the judgment-debtor. After clearance of dues by the decree-holder, the e-Khata will have to be issued within a period of 2 weeks from the date of application or compliance. Jurisdictional sub-registrars, without insisting on the presence or consent of the judgment-debtor, will have to register sale deeds executed by court commissioners. Sale deeds executed by the court commissioner will be treated as valid conveyances in law. .The petitioner was represented by Advocate KG Kumara.Advocate Navya Kumar appeared for the District Registrar, Tumkuru.Advocate R Subramanya represented the Tumkuru Mahanagara Palike..[Read Judgment]
