Writ jurisdiction cannot impeach a registered sale deed amid disputed title and available civil remedies.

The petitioners claimed title under a sale deed from Sadanand Puri dated 3 November 2025.

Respondent No. 5, as the legal representative of Suresh Lahoti, relied on a decree for specific performance concerning the property, affirmed by the appellate courts and the Supreme Court.

In execution proceedings, a court sale deed was executed in her favour on 18 December 2025 and registered on 20 December 2025; the Tahsildar subsequently mutated the khata in her name.

The petitioners challenged both the sale deed and the mutation order under Articles 226 and 227, while their application under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC in the execution proceedings and a separate civil suit remained pending.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the court-executed registered sale deed when the petitioners’ claims were also pending before the executing court and in a civil suit

2. Whether the petitioners could challenge the Tahsildar’s mutation order by writ petition despite an appeal being available under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

3. Whether disputed questions of fact concerning the parties’ competing claims to the property could be determined in the writ proceedings

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer writ and supervisory jurisdiction, but the Court declined to exercise that jurisdiction where the petitioners had efficacious remedies before the executing court and civil court, and where the dispute involved complex questions of fact.

Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides an appellate remedy against the mutation order.

Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act were identified as routes through which the petitioners could seek appropriate relief concerning the registered instrument and their asserted rights.

The Court also noted that the petitioners had not placed sufficient pleadings or acceptable material to impeach the registered sale deed.

The Court found that the petitioners’ property claims were already before the executing court through their pending application and were also the subject of a separate suit.

In those circumstances, and absent sufficient material to impeach the registered sale deed, the Court held that writ jurisdiction was not an appropriate forum to quash it.

As to the mutation order, the available appeal under Section 136(2) made the writ petition unsuitable for that relief.

The competing claims also raised complex and disputed factual questions that could not appropriately be resolved in the writ proceedings, particularly while the other proceedings remained pending.

It declined to quash the registered court sale deed or the Tahsildar’s mutation order, leaving the petitioners to pursue the remedies available before the executing court, in the civil suit, and by statutory appeal.