The main legal point established is the importance of having a registered Sale Deed and the availability of remedies under the Registration Act and the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for (a) declaration as null and void of the Sale Deed dated 6th December, 2016 executed by defendants No.2 to 17 in favour of defendant No.1, of land admeasuring 25 bighas, 7 biswas and 18 biswansi in the revenue estate of Village Pandawala Kalan, Tehsil Kapashera, New Delhi; (b) permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 to 17 from dealing with the subject land; (c) mandatory injunction directing defendant No.18 Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera, Delhi to register the Sale Deed executed by the defendants No.2 to 17 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the same land; and, (d) mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.19 Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Kapashera, Delhi to delete the name of the defendant No.1 with respect to the subject land and to enter the name of the plaintiff with respect thereto.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit for the reliefs aforesaid, pleading (i) that the defendants No.2 to 17, on 21st March, 2013 agreed to sell and executed a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the land subject matter of the suit and which Sale Deed was presented for registration; (ii) that however the defendant No.18 Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera put the said Sale Deed under objection, for want of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the defendant No.19 SDM, Kapashera and for the reason of stay order dated 14th May, 2007 in a case titled Hari Ram & Ors. Vs. Tek Chand & Ors.; (iii) that the defendants No.2 to 17, prior to the agreement to sell with the plaintiff, in November, 2012, had agreed to sell the subject land to Mahesh Tanwar and Satpal Tanwar; CS(OS) No.824/2013 filed by the said Mahesh Tanwar and Satpal Tanwar was pending in this Court and in which suit, besides the defendants No.2 to 17, the plaintiff and its Directors were also impleaded as defendants; (iv) that the defendant No.18 Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera, despite vacation of the stay order in Hari Ram & Ors. Vs. Tek Chand & Ors. had not registered the Sale Deed; (v) that the defendants No.2 to 17 however executed and got registered a Sale Deed dated 6th December, 2016 with respect to the said land in favour of the defendant No.1; (vi) that the defendant no.18 Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera has connived with the defendants no.2 to 17, against the plaintiff, in not registering the Sale Deed executed by defendants no.2 to 17 in favour of the plaintiff on 21st March, 2013 and in keeping the same pending and in having registered the Sale Deed dated 6th December, 2016; and, (vii) that the plaintiff filed W.P.(C) No.6562/2019 in this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 31st May, 2019 with a direction to the defendant no.18 to register the Sale Deed dated 21st March, 2013 in favour of the plaintiff or to pass an order stating reasons for declining registration.

3. The suit came up before this Court first on 9th August, 2019 when, the plaintiff having not pleaded that the Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera in compliance with the direction issued in the order dated 31st May, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.6562/2019, has passed any order, it was enquired from the counsel for the Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera appearing on advance notice, whether any order had been passed and / or what was the status of the registration of the deed dated 21st March, 2013 in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The counsel for Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera had no instructions.

5. In the circumstances, expressing reservation as to the maintainability of the suit, summons / notice thereof was ordered to be issued and this suit as well as CS(OS) No.824/2013 ordered to be listed before the same Bench on 23rd August, 2019.

6. On 23rd August, 2019, this suit as well as CS(OS) No.824/2013 were listed when the counsel for Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera informed that (i) Sale Deed dated 21st March, 2013 executed by defendants no.2 to 17 in favour of the plaintiff was presented for registration and an NOC application was also received from defendants no.2 to 17 for is