Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 838
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
Maha Singh
Versus
Vedo Devi
RSA No. 3804 of 2009
Decided On : FEBRUARY 9, 2010
Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act does not preclude the plaintiff from seeking further relief if available, and the plaintiff cannot be confined to the relief of execution of the registration deed. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's right to seek relief other than bare registration under Section 77 of the Registration Act is supported by established legal principles.
Headnote:
Indian Registration Act - Suit for mandatory injunction, declaration, and permanent injunction - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, which provides a remedy for refusal of registration of a document by the Registrar. The court emphasized that Section 77 does not preclude the plaintiff from seeking further relief if available and that the plaintiff cannot be confined to the relief of execution of the registration deed. The court also highlighted the principles established in various judgments, including Mathai Ouseph Panackal v. Joseph, Jhaman Mahton v. Amrit Mahton, Veeran Ambalam v. Vellaiammal, and others, which supported the plaintiff's right to seek relief other than bare registration under Section 77 of the Registration Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction, declaration, and permanent injunction, challenging the registration of a sale deed executed in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed executed in favor of the defendants was illegal and not binding due to the prior sale deed executed in the plaintiff's favor. The plaintiff sought registration of the sale deed and further relief of declaration to set aside the sale deed executed in favor of the defendants, along with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to get the sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff registered and holding the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as illegal. The court also held the sale deed executed in favor of the defendants as illegal and void.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the legality of the sale deed executed in favor of the defendants, the applicability of Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, and the plaintiff's right to seek further relief beyond the registration of the sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act does not preclude the plaintiff from seeking further relief if available and that the plaintiff cannot be confined to the relief of execution of the registration deed. The court also highlighted the principles established in various judgments, which supported the plaintiff's right to seek relief other than bare registration under Section 77 of the Registration Act.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to get the sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff registered and holding the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as illegal. The court also held the sale deed executed in favor of the defendants as illegal and void.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1 The appellants who were defendant Nos. 4 and 5 before the trial Court have filed the instant appeal, challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent directing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (now respondent Nos. 2 to 4) to get the sale deed dated 20.4.1998 regarding the suit property registered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 with a further decree for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 17.9.1998 and 18.9.2000 passed by the Revenue Authorities were illegal and not binding upon his rights and further declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 29.11.1999 executed by Smt. Usha Rani on behalf of respondent No. 2 to 4 regarding the suit land in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (now appellants) is illegal null and void and is liable to be set aside with a further decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) over the suit land.
2 As per averments made in the suit, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 along with Usha Rani, Lalita, Darshana and Vijay Lakshmi were holders of land measuring 88 kanals 0 marla in equal shares as per the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 situated in the revenue estate of village Basahra, Tehsil Samalkha, Distt. Panipat. Out of this land, Usha Rani, Lalita, Darshana Rani and Vijay Lakshmi sold their share to the extent of 50/88 share i.e. 50 kanals to Krishan Kumar and Naresh Kumar (sons of the plaintiff) vide sale deed dated 13.12.1996. The possession was accordingly delivered to them at the time of execution of sale deed itself. On 19.4.1998, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 through their mother and court guardian Usha Rani entered into an agreement to sell the share of minor defendant Nos. 1 to 3, out of the aforesaid land of 88 kanals 0 marla which comes out to be 754/1760 share measuring i.e. 37 kanals 14 marlas with the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The sale consideration was paid to Usha Rani on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 at their residence on 20.4.1998 and on the same day, a sale deed of this property was executed which was scribed by the scribe and after accepting the contents of the same as correct, Usha Rani appended her thumb mark over the same and also in the register of the scribe in the presence of witnesses. It was also mentioned in the said sale deed that the actual physical possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff.
3 It is the further case of the plaintiff that the sale deed could not be registered and the plaintiff filed an application dated 20.8.1998 before the Sub Registrar, Samalkha, with a prayer for direction to Usha Rani mother and guardian of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for getting the sale deed dated 20.4.1998 registered in the name of the plaintiff. On issuance of notice, Smt. Usha Rani did not appear and the Sub Registrar, Samalkha refused to register the sale deed dated 20.4.1998 vide his order dated 17.9.1998.
4 Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of Registrar(Deputy Commissioner, Panipat). During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, it was agreed between the parties to adjourn the appeal as sine die till the decision of the Civil Court pending between Maha Singh-defendant No. 4 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. After the decision of Civil Suit No. 407 of 1998 titled as Maha Singh v. Usha Rani etc. decided on 7.12.1999, the plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the appeal which was restored. The appellants applied for impleading them on the ground that they had purchased the land in dispute from Usha Rani and the sale deed dated 29.11.1999 has already been registered in this regard. After hearing the parties, the Registrar rejected the appeal of the plaintiff on the ground that the sale deed had already been executed in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5 vide his ord
