SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Kar) 200

Karnataka High Court
M.Ramakrishna Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Sub-Registrar, Bangalore - Respondent
Decided On : 04-05-99

The main legal point established in the judgment is that an Encumbrance Certificate does not create or affect title, and the authority of the Registering Officer is limited in deciding questions of title and making changes to entries.

Headnote:

Encumbrance Certificate - Property Dispute - Registration Act, 1908, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 17, Section 3, Section 51, Section 54, Section 55 - The judgment discusses the nature and effect of an Encumbrance Certificate, the requirements for registration of instruments, the role of the Registering Officer, and the limitations on the authority of the Registering Officer in relation to title disputes.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed ownership of a property and sought a direction to remove the name of the second respondent as the purchaser of the property. The petitioner's claim was based on the issuance of an Encumbrance Certificate and a notice to the first respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court clarified the nature and effect of an Encumbrance Certificate, emphasizing that it does not create or affect title. The court also highlighted the limitations on the authority of the Registering Officer in deciding questions of title and the appropriate course of action for property disputes.

Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the nature and effect of an Encumbrance Certificate, the authority of the Registering Officer, and the appropriate legal recourse for property disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established that an Encumbrance Certificate is not a document of title, clarified the role of the Registering Officer, and emphasized that property disputes should be addressed through civil courts.

Final Decision: The petitioner's claim was rejected, and the petitioner was advised to approach the civil court for resolution of the property dispute.

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) SRI S. Udayashankar, learned A. G. A. is directed to take notice for first respondent (The Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore ).

( 2 ) PETITIONER claims that he had purchased site No. 206, measuring 40' x 60' situated at Mahalakshmi House Building Co-operative Society Layout, West of Chord Road, II Stage, II Phase, Bangalore (more fully described in the Schedule to the Writ petition) under a registered sale deed dated 22-1-1981 registered as document No. 5255/1980-81 in Book I, Volume 391, page 193 (filed in SF Vol. 103 Page 107) in the office of the first respondent.

( 3 ) PETITIONER claims to have applied for and obtained an Encumbrance Certificate dated 21-11-1998 (Annexure D) for the period 1-4-1980 to 20-11-1998. On obtaining such certificate, he claims to have become aware of the fact that the very same site has been sold by M/s. Co-operative Department Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. ('cdehcs Ltd. ' for short) in favour of the second respondent under a registered sale deed dated 29-10-1981 (registered as document No. 3773 in Book I, Volume 259, page 61 in the Office of the first respondent ).

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is the lawful owner of the said site; that CDEHCS Ltd. , had no right in the petitioner's site, nor could it be sold by the said Society in favour of second respondent, and that first respondent could not have registered the sale deed relating to the said site in favour of second respondent. He, therefore, claims to have issued a notice dated 15-12-1998 to the first respondent calling upon him to remove the name of second respondent as purchaser of his site, in the records of the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that first respondent has not complied with the said notice. Hence, he has filed this petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to "remove the encumbrance and entries effected in the name of second respondent in respect of the Schedule property as contained in Annexure D". Alternatively, the petitioner seeks a direction to first respondent to consider his demand contained in his notice dated 15-12-1998 (Annexure G ).

( 5 ) THE petition proceeds on a misconception as to what is an 'encumbrance Certificate'. It proceeds on the assumption that it is a document of title and an entry therein by itself affects the title of the owner. An Encumbrance Certificate neither creates, nor affects title. It is not a document of title, but a document giving the references of the deeds of title and encumbrances. A brief reference to the relevant provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Act' for short, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the TP Act') for short) and the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 ('the Rules' for short) will be necessary to know the true meaning and effect of an Encumbrance Certificate. 5. 1. The object and intent of providing for registration of instruments under the Act is to create and maintain a public record of transactions relating to immovable properties, on which every person dealing with an immovable property can rely with confidence, for a full and complete account of the transactions by which his title to the immovable property, may be affected. Section 17 of the Act enumerates the documents of which the registration is compulsory. All instruments (except wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, in regard to an immovable property the value of which is Rs. 100/- or more, and all Gift Deeds as also leases relating to immovable properties for any term exceeding one year, are compulsory registrable. 5. 2. Section 3 of T. P. Act defines the terms "registered " and "a person is said to have notice", The word 'registered' means registered under the law for the time being in force regulating registration of documents. 'a person is said to have notice' 'of a fact, when h









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top