Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ravi V.Hosmani, J.
Sunandamma – Appellant
Versus
District Registrar – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3643 of 2018 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 23-05-2023
REGISTRATION - Land Registration Dispute - Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 68(2), 72; Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Section 45A - The court examined the legality of an order restoring the registration of a sale deed that had been previously refused. It highlighted that the order was made without notice to the affected parties and during the pendency of civil suits regarding the same property. The court emphasized the importance of following due process under the Indian Registration Act, particularly the right to appeal under Section 72 and the necessity of notice as per principles of natural justice. The court concluded that the order was arbitrary and unsustainable, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order restoring the registration of a sale deed executed in 1997, which had been previously refused due to undervaluation and other issues. The petitioners claimed ownership of the property through inheritance and alleged that the sale deed was fraudulently created. The respondents argued that the restoration was justified under Section 68(2) of the Indian Registration Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioners and during the pendency of civil suits regarding the property. It ruled that the order was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were not given an opportunity to contest the restoration of the sale deed.
Issues: Whether the restoration of the registration of the sale deed was lawful given the lack of notice to the petitioners and the ongoing civil suits regarding the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exercise of power under Section 68(2) of the Indian Registration Act was improper in this case, as there was a specific provision for appeal under Section 72, which was not followed. The court emphasized that decisions affecting title should not be made without due process and notice to all parties involved.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order restoring the registration of the sale deed was quashed.
The legal document pertains to a dispute over the legality of an order restoring the registration of a sale deed concerning a property. The court emphasized that such restoration must follow principles of natural justice, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, especially when there are ongoing civil suits related to the property (!) (!) . The court found that the impugned order was issued without notice to the affected parties and during the pendency of civil proceedings, rendering it arbitrary and unlawful (!) (!) .
The case involved a sale deed executed in 1997, which was initially refused registration due to issues like undervaluation and suspicion of fraud, and later destroyed as unclaimed. The authorities restored the registration based on representations and reports obtained years after the initial refusal, without issuing notice or following the proper appeal procedures under the relevant registration laws (!) (!) (!) . The court observed that the order was passed during the pendency of civil suits and without proper legal process, making it susceptible to judicial review and invalidation (!) (!) .
The court also highlighted that the specific legal provisions provide for an appeal against refusal of registration, and such remedies should be pursued rather than challenging the order through extraordinary writ proceedings unless there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice or procedural irregularity (!) (!) (!) . Furthermore, the destruction of the original document before completing all registration formalities and the subsequent exercise of power under certain sections of the Registration Act without proper notice was deemed unlawful (!) .
In conclusion, the court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and violated due process, leading to its quashing. The matter underscores the importance of following statutory procedures, including notices and appeals, before exercising powers that affect property rights and titles (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
1. Challenging impugned order bearing no. JI.NO/GA.NO.JI/673/2016-17 dtd. 1/10/2016 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent no.1, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that land bearing Sy.no.109, new no.123 of Singapura village, measuring 1 acre (hereinafter referred to as 'petition property') belongs to petitioners. It was granted on 19/4/1978 to Nanjundappa, father of petitioners no.1 to 5 and father-in-law of petitioner no.6. After death of Nanjundappa, Khata was mutated in name of his wife Smt.Achamma, who died intestate on 10/4/2006. As such, petitioners succeeded to property.
3. It was submitted that during life time of Smt.Achamma, husband of respondent no.4 and father of respondents no.5 and 6 namely Kemparaju played fraud on her and obtained her signatures on some papers and created sale deed dtd. 22/2/1997. However, due to undervaluation, its registration was refused. When Kemparaju sought to interfere with their peaceful possession based on said sale deed, petitioners filed O.S.no.260/2015 seeking for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction.
4. In suit defendant no.1 - Kemparaju filed written statement (Annexure-D) and also filed O.S.no.7015/2014 against respondents no.1 to 3 and petitioners herein for declaration that sale deed dtd. 22/2/1997 at Annexure-B as legal, valid and subsisting. Both suits were clubbed and presently pending on file of IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Since Kemparaju died on 26/8/2016, respondents no.4 to 6, claiming as his legal representatives filed application under Order XXII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC').
5. Thereafter, they filed a memo stating that respondent no.1 had recalled earlier order of refusal and restored registration of sale deed. On enquiry, petitioners found that respondent no.1 had passed impugned order dtd. 1/10/2016 for restoration of registration of sale deed dtd. 22/2/1997 after setting aside order of refusal for registration.
6. It was contended that said order was passed without notice or opportunity to petitioners and was therefore illegal and arbitrary, calling for interference by this Court.
7. It was further submitted that against order of refusal to register, an appeal was available under Sec. 72 of Indian Registration Act, 1908 within 30 days. In instant case however, impugned order is passed without appeal being preferred, merely in pursuance of representation of Kemparaju on 13/8/2015, that too after enormous delay, without application for condonation.
8. And that impugned order was passed apparently when parties were agitating their rights before Civil Court to which respondent no.1 was also a party. Therefore, impugned order was arbitrary, illegal and wholly unsustainable in law.
9. It was urged that Sub-Registrar guidance value of agricultural property in Singapura village during 1996-97 was Rupees Four Lakhs per acre. Therefore, sale deed was grossly undervalued. But on ground of original deed remaining unclaimed for more than 2 years, it was destroyed as per Rule 220 of Registration Rules. But as undervaluation was endorsed on each page of said deed, without complying with procedure under Sec. 45A, impugned order would be highly irregular calling for interference.
10. It was submitted, fact that sale deed dtd. 22/2/1997 was fraudulently created could also be gauged from reference to khata no.IHC no.7/96-97 referred to in sale deed, which did not belong to her at all, but belonged to Sri Gangaiah S/o Beeraiah in respect of Sy.no.55 and their ancestor Ramchandrappa S/o late Gangaiah. It was contended that since registration of original deed was refused and same was later destroyed as per orders of District Registrar, there was no sale deed in eye of law. Such being case, contention of respondents no.4 to 6 about petitioners having executed confirmation deed on 22/6/2013 as per Annexure-R3 would be grossly unsustainable and illegal.
11. Furthe
The court established that the restoration of a registration order must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to notice and the opportunity to be heard, especially when title d....
The main legal point established is that the grounds for refusal of registration must align with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and should not be based on invalid reasons.
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....
The registering officer has no authority to withhold a registered document after the completion of the registration process, and any refusal must be based on clear legal grounds.
The registering authority must register a deed if all legal requirements are met, regardless of third-party objections regarding title, reaffirming the administrative role of the registration process....
The registration authority cannot refuse to register sale deeds based solely on pending civil litigation, as the authority lacks the adjudicatory power to determine title disputes.
A Sub-Registrar has the independent authority to decide the registrability of deeds, and cannot refuse registration based on a District Registrar's clarification regarding leasehold status.
The distinction between signing and executing a document is crucial; mere signature admission does not equate to execution, impacting the validity of registration.
The Sub Registrar's role is administrative and limited to ensuring compliance with statutory formalities, and he does not have the authority to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a ....
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
