Sunandamma vs District Registrar - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 1015

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Kar) 1015

RAVI V. HOSMANI
Sunandamma – Appellant
Versus
District Registrar – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
V.Shiva Reddy, Advocate, P.N.Nanja Reddy, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

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 sta