IMPORTANT POINT
The Registrar's decision under the Registration Act is summary in nature and limited in operation, and the Registrar's jurisdiction is narrower compared to the plenary jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

ORDER :

The petitioners in this writ petition are assailing the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by respondent No.1 in Case No.RA 4/2003-04 by which, the appeal filed by respondent No.3 was allowed, directing respondent No.2 to register the Sale Deed dated 06.05.2002 stated to have been executed by the petitioners in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of Sy. No.118/4 to the extent of 2 acres 23 guntas situated at Bannimangala Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. It is stated that the petitioners are the absolute owners of 2 acres 23 guntas of the petition property situated at Bannimangala Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. It is stated in the petition that, respondent No.3 has alleged that the petitioners have executed an agreement of sale dated 09.11.1998 in favour of respondent No.3 agreeing to sell the suit property for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- and as an earnest money, a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- was received by the petitioners herein. It is further stated that, respondent No.3 in pursuance of the agreement, a sale deed dated 06.05.2002 was also prepared on adequate stamp papers and at his request, petitioner Nos.1 to 6 affixed their signatures on the sale deed. Since petitioner No.7 was a minor as on the date of the sale deed, petitioner No.1 has signed the sale deed as father and natural guardian of petitioner No.7. It is further stated that respondent No.3 presented the sale deed before respondent No.2 on 21.08.2002 for registration and the petitioners did not appear on the said date before respondent No.2. The matter stood thus, respondent No.2 passed the order on 06.03.2004 under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 refusing to register the sale deed in question in the absence of the petitioners being present before respondent No.2.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.3 in R.A. No.04/2003-04 under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Registration Act’ for short) before respondent No.1. It appears that during pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.3 filed a suit in O.S. No.2153/2006 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Devanahalli seeking for a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of agreement of sale dated 09.11.1998 and after a full-fledged trial, the said suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 23.09.2010. In spite of dismissal of the civil suit, respondent No.1 has proceeded with the appeal filed by respondent No.3 under Section 72 of the Registration Act by holding an enquiry and passed the impugned order directing respondent No.2 to register the sale deed in question. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, the present writ petition is preferred.

5. Statement of objections have been filed by the legal representatives of respondent No.3 inter alia contending that the dismissal of the civil suit in O.S. No.2153/2006 has no bearing upon the disposal of the appeal by respondent No.1 for the reason that the appeal was filed only after the petitioner had received the entire sale consideration and thereby, the order passed by respondent No.1 is in accordance with law and it is further stated that the petitioners have received the entire sale consideration amount, as such, they did not venture to take action against respondent No.3 and would contend that the writ petition needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-the State has filed statement of objections stating that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and would justify the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. It is further stated that the petitioners have admitted the execution of the deed during the course of enquiry and the suit in O.S.No.2153/2006 is no way concerned with the enquiry and