The refusal of registration based on the absence of a demarcated parking plan was contrary to Section 21 of the Registration Act, and the Registering Authority cannot convert a proceeding pertaining to registration of a document into a title suit.

Jayant Nath, J.

1. The present Suit is filed under Section 77 of the Registration Act 1908 seeking relief of a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing defendant no.1 to register the document being Sale Deed dated 3.5.2012 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Second Floor of property No.A-11/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Suit are that M/s. Clement Overseas Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the property No. A-11/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi measuring 600 sq. yds vide Sale Deed dated 22.10.1997. A collaboration Agreement was entered into on 13.4.1998 by the said owner company with the developer Shri B.K. Uppal to develop the said property. The property was to comprise of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor, terrace and two driveways. The owner’s share was basement, ground floor and one drive way towards property No.A-11/10, Vasant Vihar. Developer’s share was First Floor, Second Floor, terrace with right to raise further construction and another driveway adjoining the side lane.

3. Vide two sale deeds dated 11.12.1998 the developer sold the entire second floor and the full terrace with the right to raise further construction to one Shri Sanjeev Shankar. The said Shri Sanjeev Shankar on 12.5.2009 got the plans sanctioned from MCD for construction of the third floor. After constructing the same he sold the same vide Sale Deed dated 15.7.2010 to Shri Hira Bakul Shah. Shri Sanjeev Shankar sold the entire second floor to defendant No.2 vide Sale Deed dated 19.7.2010.

4. Thereafter defendant No.2 sold the said second floor being the suit property to the plaintiff and executed Sale Deed dated 3.5.2012 which was presented for registration to defendant No.1.

5. Vide order dated 4.9.2012 the Sub Registrar concerned i.e. defendant No.1 refused to register the said document. Defendant No.1 refused the said registration by stating the following reasons:-

“…Accordingly, the undersigned has perused and examined the documents and material available in the records and it is found that clearly demarcated parking plan has not been provided despite above hearings and the willingness of the vendor to submit the parking plan, which is in contravention of the section 21 of The Registration Act, 1908.

In view of the position explained in the above paras the undersigned is of the considered opinion that the instrument under consideration cannot be registered. Ordered accordingly. The instrument bearing proofing no.6809 is being refused to register as per the provisions of section 71 of The Registration Act, 1908..”

6. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order of the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. The appeal was dismissed by the said functionary on 17.1.2013.

“.... After hearing both the parties at length, I am of the considered opinion that the Sub-Registrar-IX has acted well within his powers and jurisdiction to seek the demarcated parking plan of the said plot in question, to satisfy himself that the plot which was desired to be sold through the sale deed was free from all disputes/encumbrances. It appears that there is no malafide intention on the part of Sub Registrar IX, as alleged by the appellant Sh. Gurjeet Singh Madan in his appeal. Further, no sound grounds have been established for the setting aside of the order of refusal passed by the Sub-Registrar-IX on 04.09.2012 and the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of any merits....”

7. Section 77 of the Registration Act provides that where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered then any person claiming the said document may within 30 days institute in a Civil Court a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present Suit.

8. The defendant No.1 has filed his written statement. Defendant No.1 states that even before the Sale Deed in question was presented for registration