Back
Karnataka High Court
Veerabadhrappa - Appellant
Versus
Jagadishgouda - Respondent
Decided On : 04-17-02
W.A. : 415 of 2000
KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 - Sections 28, 45A & 61 - Sale deed presented -kept pending -notice issued -deficit stamp duty demanded -held, the Sub-Registrar cannot insist deficit stamp duty, his power lies under sections 28 & 61.
[R. V. Raveendran & K. L. Manjunath, JJ.] - Sub-Registrar can neither keep the document pending nor impound it on the ground that valuation shown was incorrect, but could only take action under Section 28 and 61 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Even after Section 45A of the Act came into effect, the registration of the document could not be kept pending on the ground of under valuation as held in Mohan Shet (Supra). It therefore follows that the Sub-Registrar could not have kept the sale deeds dated 20.10.1982 and 4.3.1982 pending on the ground that the properties sold thereunder were undervalued. Therefore, the notices dated 30.11.1982 holding that documents were undervalued and demanding deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for registration, were illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, when the said notices dated 30.11.1982 were quashed on the ground that the Sub-Registrar had no authority to keep the Registration of the sale deeds pending, the Sub-Registrar had no alternative but to register the documents.
Cases Referred: ILR 1993 Kar 2906; ILR-1995(4) Kar 3589; ILR 1916 (40) MAD 204; ILR 44 (1922) ALL 514; AIR 1973 Mys 276; ILR 1991 Kar 2190; 116(1929) 1C 317; AIR 1945 Peshwar 9; AIR 1948 Pat 60; AIR 1946 MAD 140/40; AIR 1960 Mad 396; AIR 1991 P & H 291; ILR 1990 Kar 3740; ILR 1999(2) Kar 2003.
Effective date of the sale deeds
(INDIAN) REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - Sections 47 & 75 -Sale deeds presented for registration -kept pending for several years -then registered - the sale deeds will be effective from the date of their execution -not from the date of actual registration.
[R. V. Raveendran & K. L. Manjunath, JJ.] - When registration of a document is ordered to be kept pending or when registration of a document is refused, and subsequently such document is ordered to be registered, such registration takes effect as if the document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration. That would mean that the registration relates back to the date of execution. The well settled principle is that if there is a competition between registered documents relating to the same property, the document first in order of time has priority over the other, though the former document may not have been registered until after the latter.
Cases Referred: ILR 1993 Kar 2906; ILR-1995(4) Kar 3589;
ILR 1916 (40) Mad 204;
ILR 44 (1922) ALL 514; AIR 1973 Mys 276; ILR 1991 Kar 2190; 116(1929) 1C 317; AIR 1945 Pesh 9; AIR 1948 Pat 60; AIR 1946 Mad 140/40; AIR 1960 Mad 396; AIR 1991 P & H 291; ILR 1990 Kar 3740; ILR 1999(2) Kar 2003.
Effect of multiple sale deeds
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - Section 47 -Sale deeds presented for registration -pendency of -subsequent deeds presented -deeds registered -subject matter remaining the same - the former deed becomes valid if subsequently registered - hence, subsequent vendees will not acquire any title by virtue of the later documents.
[R. V. Raveendran & K. L. Manjunath, JJ.] - The sale deeds dated 29-10-1982 and 4-3-1982 having been duly registered (irrespective of date of registration), relate back to date of this execution and any subsequent sale deeds executed by the same vendors in regard to the same lands on 7-6-1990 will not convey any title to the subsequent purchasers.
Cases Referred: ILR 1993 Kar 2906; ILR-1995(4) Kar 3589; ILR 1916 (40) MAD 204; ILR 44 (1922) ALL 514; AIR 1973 Mys 276; ILR 1991 Kar 2190; 116(1929) 1C 317; AIR 1945 Peshwar 9; AIR 1948 Patna 60; AIR 1946 MAD 140/40; AIR 1960 MAD 396; AIR 1991 P & H 291; ILR 1990 Kar 3740; ILR 1999(2) Kar 2003.
Whether declaratory reliefs be granted under writ jurisdiction?
Articles 226 &227 - Articles 226 & 227 -Whether declaratory reliefs can be granted under writ jurisdiction? Dispute -immovable property -questions of facts - exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Courts -writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised.
[R.V. Raveendran & K.L. Manjunath, JJ.] - While the jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide and mere existence of an alternative remedy may not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court, the said jurisdiction will not be exercised for granting declaratory relief s in regard to immovable properties, involving disputed questions of fact. That should be left to the Civil Courts.
Cases Referred:
ILR 1993 Kar 2906; ILR-1995(4) Kar 3589; ILR 1916 (40) MAD 204; ILR 44 (1922) ALL 514; AIR 1973 Mys 276; ILR 1991 Kar 2190; 116(1929) 1C 317; AIR 1945 Peshwar 9; AIR 1948 Patna 60; AIR 1946 MAD 140/40; AIR 1960 MAD 396; AIR 1991 P & H 291; ILR 1990 Kar 3740; ILR 1999(2) Kar 2003.
( 1 ) APPELLANTS herein were respondents 5 and 6 in W. P. Nos. 21974-75/1998. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 herein were respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 5 and 3 here in were respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ Petitions.
( 2 ) LATE Chatura Chand Shah (father of respondents 5 and 6) was the owner of Sy. No. 61/1 measuring 7acres 6 guntas and respondent No. 6 was the owner of Sy. No. 60/2 measuring 12 acres 8 guntas in Choudapur Village, Biligi Taluk, Bagalkot District. Respondents No. 6 sold land bearing in Sy. No. 60/2 in favour of second appellant under sale deed dated 4. 3. 1982 for a consideration of 25,000/- Chatura Chand Shah sold land bearing Sy. No. 61/1 to the first appellant under sale deed dated 20. 10. 1982 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/00. The Sub-Registrar, Biligi (fourth respondent) being of the opinion that documents were undervalued, kept them pending by assigning pending numbers and issued notices dated 30. 11. 1983 to the appellants informing that the sale deeds in their favour were undervalued and that the correct value was Rs. 1,91,300/-and Rs. 3,16,450/ -. The said notices required the first appellant to pay Rs. 18,320/- and the second appellant to pay Rs. 32,070/- as deficit stamp duty and Registration charges on the difference in value.
( 3 ) THE said notices dated 30. 11. 1983 were challenged by the appellants in W. P. Nos. 5046-5047/1986. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by order dated 11. 11. 1993. This Court quashed the notices and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the light of the decision in MOHAN SHET vs STATE OF KARNATAKA holding that the Registering Officer could not decline to register the documents on the ground of under-valuation. This Court also observed that if the Sub-Registrar was of the view that the properties covered by the sale deeds were undervalued, he ought to have referred to the documents on the basis of which he was of the view that sale deeds were undervalued and thereafter made an appropriate order. The learned Single Judge held that there was nothing to show that Sub- registrar had reason to believe that properties were not properly valued. The effect of disposing of the said Writ Petitions in terms of the earlier decision in MOHAN SHET s case was to direct the Sub- registrar, Biligi to proceed in accordance with law and register the sale deeds in favour of appellants 1 and 2, unless there was any other impediment against the registration.
( 4 ) IN the meanwhile Chatura Chand Shah died. Respondents 5 and 6 executed two fresh sale deeds dated 7. 6. 1990 in favour of respondents 1 and 2 respectively purporting to sell the very same lands ( that is Sy. No. 61/1 and 60/2) for a consideration of rs. 90,000. 00 and 1,52,000. 00 respectively. According to respondents 1, 2 (purchasers )and respondents 5 and 6 (vendors), the lands in question were encumbered in favour of third respondent even before the sales in favour of appellants and no title was conveyed under the sale deeds dated 20. 10. 1982 and 4. 3. 1982 in favour of appellants and therefore respondents 5 and 6 continued to have valid title to the lands even after executing the sale deeds dated 20. 10. 1982 and 4. 3. 1982; and that respondents 5 and 6 sold the said lands under sale deeds 7. 6. 1990 to respondents 1 and 2, after respondents 1 and 2 had discharged the encumbrance in favour of the third respondent. The said sale deeds in favour of respondents 1 and 2 were registered as documents No. 295 of 1990-91 of Book No. I, volume 177 at pages 132 to 135 and Document No. 294/90-91 of book No. I, Volume 178 at pages 67 to 70 in the office of the Sub- registrar, Biligi.
( 5 ) WHEN the said sale deeds were executed in favour of respondents - 1 and 2,by respondents 5 and 6, the earlier sale deeds dated 20. 10. 1982 and 4. 3. 1982 executed in favour of appellants 1 and 2 were pending registration and were the subject matter of W. P. Nos. 5046-47/1986.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
