The importance of registration under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the role of the Sub-Registrar in completing the registration process.

JUDGMENT

1. These six petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as the issues involved are materially the same.

2. These petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 25th September, 2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Trial Court, allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by each of the plaintiffs before it in CS DJ 119/2019; CS DJ 123/2019; CS DJ 122/2019; CS DJ 121/2019; CS DJ 124/2019 and CS DJ 120/2019 respectively, who are the respective respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions before this Court.

3. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein is not a party to the suits. However, he is aggrieved because according to him, the impugned orders affect his rights to the extent of 75% of the undivided share in the property bearing House No. 45, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Property), without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

4. Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondents No. 2 to 5/defendants No. 1 to 4 had become owners of 25% undivided share each in the Suit Property, having purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 8th March, 2018, placed on record as Annexure P-2. Amongst themselves, respondents  No. 2 to 5/defendants No. 1 to 4 entered into an oral agreement to develop the Suit Property together in such a manner that after the construction/development, the Suit Property would consist of stilt level for parking, Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor. They further agreed that the Ground Floor shall belong to respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1, the First Floor to respondent No. 3/defendant No. 2, the Second Floor to respondent No. 4/defendant No. 3 and the Third Floor to respondent No. 5/defendant No. 4. They were also free to sell their respective shares to any other third party without any hindrance or objection from the other respondents/defendants.

5. It was submitted that the suits were filed for Specific Performance of Agreements to Sell, alleging that respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1, had transferred various flats to the plaintiffs in the suits, being respondent No. 1 in each of the present petitions. Claiming that he had been authorized by the other joint owners, he entered into various Agreements as below:

(i) with the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in CM(M) 30/2021 dated 22nd October, 2017 agreeing to sell to her an Apartment on the left side of the third floor of the Suit Property;

(ii) with the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in CM(M) 32/2021 dated 15th November, 2018 agreeing to sell to her an Apartment on the Upper Ground floor on the right side of the Suit Property;

(iii) with the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in CM(M) 43/2021 dated 03rd November, 2017 agreeing to sell to him an Apartment on the back side on the ground floor of the Suit Property;

(iv) with the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in CM(M) 45/2021 dated 15th November, 2018 agreeing to sell to her an Apartment on the right side of the third floor of the Suit Property;

(v) with the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in CM(M) 50/2021 dated 23rd October, 2017 agreeing to sell to him an Apartment on the left side of the first floor of the Suit Property and,

(vi) with the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in CM(M) 51/2021 dated 27th April, 2018 agreeing to sell to him an Apartment on the Upper Ground floor of the Suit Property.

6. These Agreements to Sell were not registered. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that in the absence of registered documents, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in each of the petitions had no right in the Suit Property.

7. Subsequently, through a registered Sale Deed dated 9th January, 2019, respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1 transferred his undivided 25% share in the Suit Property in favour of respondent No. 6/Shri Rambir Singh. Thus the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1 was left with no rights or title in his 25% share in the Suit P