Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH
Sub-Registrar-cum-Revenue Officer, Talcher – Appellant
Versus
Suphala Badakunnar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the appeal context. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. checks on the plaintiff's title and registration process. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding the authority of registration. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's reasoning on possessory title and registration. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. (Para 12) |
D. Dash, J.
1. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Angul in RFA No. 20 of 2016. The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit, i.e., Civil Suit No. 232 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Talcher with the prayer to direct the Appellant No. 1 (Defendant No. 1) to register the sale deed executed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4)."
2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.
3. Plaintiffs-case is that a patch of land measuring Ac. 0.82 dec. under Plot No. 649 appertaining to Khata No. 202
A Registering Authority must safeguard against unlawful property transfers and cannot autonomously confirm title based on assertions of adverse possession without a competent court's declaration.
A Sub-Registrar has the independent authority to decide the registrability of deeds, and cannot refuse registration based on a District Registrar's clarification regarding leasehold status.
The Sub-Registrar must independently decide on the registrability of a deed without needing clarification from the District Registrar, as their investigation into title is not permissible under law.
The Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration of a document solely due to title disputes unless it is proven the vendor has no title over the property in question.
Mere dispute of title would not ordinarily constitute a reason for refusal to register sale deed.
Mere dispute of title would not ordinarily constitute a reason for refusal to register sale deed.
The claim of title and plea of adverse possession cannot coexist. An unregistered sale deed cannot be looked into for collateral purposes.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
