Point of Law : Challenge in the writ petition was to the order of the Registrar directing registration and since it has been held that the registration done pursuant to the said order was a nullity, the withdrawal of the writ petition would be of no consequence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

2. On 15.02.1982, R.Chennaveeramma and R.Bhagirathamma—daughters of C.Rudraiah filed a suit seeking for a decree of injunction to restrain Y.Chikkanna from interfering with their possession over the house property bearing Door No.42, situated at N.G.O’s Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Mysuru.

3. It was stated that the suit house property had been allotted to their father Rudraiah on 01.02.1967 and all the municipal records stood in his name. It was stated that Rudraiah had passed away on 06.01.1982 and during his lifetime, he had executed a registered Will dated 20.11.1973 (registered on 23.11.1973) bequeathing the house in their favour and they had thus succeeded to the property. They stated that they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the house property and as the defendant was contending that he had purchased the suit property and had come near the suit property and tried to interfere with their possession, they were constrained to file the suit.

4. This suit was resisted by Chikkanna stating that Rudraiah had been allotted with the site by the Karnataka Housing Board under a Hire-Purchase Agreement, but he was not in a position to pay the installments and in addition, he had decided to leave Mysuru and return to his native place and he had therefore decided to sell the suit house in favour of the defendant. He stated that Rudraiah had executed a sale deed on 03.05.1979 in his favour for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,000/-.

5. According to him, as per the terms of the sale deed, he had paid a sum of Rs.3,612=77 to the Karnataka Housing Board on behalf of Rudraiah, which was the entire balance due to the Board. He stated that he had also paid a sum of Rs.6,800/- to Rudraiah in the presence of the witnesses and Rudraiah had agreed to receive the balance consideration at the time of the registration of the sale deed.

6. Chikkanna, however, stated that since Rudraiah failed to ensure registration of the sale deed, he had presented the document for registration, but the Sub- Registrarhad refused to register the sale deed and he was therefore constrained to prefer an appeal to the District Registrar, who by an order dated 23.06.1981, directed the registration of the said sale deed and accordingly, the sale deed was registered on 27.06.1981.

7. Chikkanna also stated that thereafter, he had issued a legal notice on 09.08.1981 to Rudraiah calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,587=23 and to hand-over the vacant possession to him andto secure the necessary documents from the Karnataka Housing Board. He stated that after obtaining the sale deed, he had got the Khata registered in his name, and he was entitled to be in possession of the house property.

8. He stated that Rudraiah had died on 06.01.1982 and that his daughters who were not residing with him in the suit house, subsequently, in connivance with Rudraiah’s son, began to stake a claim that they were the legatees under the registered Will dated 20.11.1973 (registered on 23.11.1973). Chikkanna stated that he was not admitting the genuineness, execution and validity of the Will and the plaintiffs were put to strict proof of the same. It was also stated that even if the Will was duly proved, the plaintiffs could not have derived any title under the will, since Rudraiah had himself sold the property during his lifetime. He also stated that in the light of a registered deed of conveyance executed in his favour, the execution of the Will or the payment of taxes was of no consequence.

9. It was also stated that after the Khata was registered in his name, he had applied to the Karnataka Housing Board for execution of the requisite documents in his favour and the said claim was still pending and he had also learnt that the plaintiffs had approached this Court by way of a wr