Failure to adhere to the statutory time limit for document registration under Section 23 of the Registration Act voids any right to seek registration, regardless of payment of stamp duty.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"1. Issue a Writ, in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2018 passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC and 38 & 40 of KARNATAKA STAMP ACT in O.S.No.201/2010 by the II Additional civil judge, Arasikere vide Annexrue-F and consequently dismiss the application filed by the 1^st defendant under Section 151 of CPC and 38 & 40 of KARNATAKA STAMP ACT .

2. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case."

2. Sri.Girish M.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said proceedings, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Section 38 to 40 of the KARNATAKA STAMP ACT , 1957 (for short 'the Stamp Act'), seeking prayer to send document i.e., Ex.D86 to the Sub-Registrar, Arasikere for registration. The trial Court without considering the effect of Section 23 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, by incorrect understanding of law, directed the Sub-Registrar, Arasikere to register Ex.D86 i.e., Palu patti deed and directed to return the same. The trial Court has committed a grave error in understanding the scope and ambit of the Stamp Act and the REGISTRATION ACT . Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.G.K.Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that Ex.D86 is a Palu patti deed which was produced before the trial Court and there was an objection with regard to the payment of stamp duty which was made good by respondent No.1 and thereafter, an application came to be filed seeking registration of the said document. The trial Court considering the same has rightly directed the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to register the instrument of Palu patti deed i.e., Ex.D86 which does not call for interference. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushik Premkumar Mishra v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji [ Civil Appeal No. 1573/2023 dated 19.07.2024 ] and contends that there is no limitation for registration of the instrument. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

5. The petitioners filed O.S.No.201/2010 seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The respondent No.1 defended the said suit by filing the written statement. In the said proceedings, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC and Sections 38 to 40 of the Stamp Act, seeking the direction to the Trial Court to send Ex.D86 for registration. The said application was opposed by the petitioners. The trial Court considering the rival submissions, allowed the application by directing the Sub-Registrar, Arasikere to register Ex.D86 and send this registered document to the Court. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the stamp duty and penalty was paid and within one month of paying the duty and penalty, the application for registration is moved which is within the stipulated period as per Section 40 (2) of the Stamp Act. The Trial Court relied on the decision of this Court in the case of K. Amarnath v. Puttamma , ILR 1999 Kar 4634 has recorded that the case on hand falls under the purview of Section 40 (2) of the Stamp Act and held that when the document is relied by the party and paid duty and penalty in accordance with law, the same is required to get registered in order to