IMPORTANT POINT
There is no need to file suit for cancellation of a void document.

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.—The validity of a sale deed not cancelled by a Civil Court according to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is the core issue involved in this appeal.

2. 7th defendant is the appellant. O.S.No.2990/2010 was brought by respondents no. 1 & 2 in the court of XL Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, claiming the following reliefs:

“a. For a judgment and decree to declare that the entries as found in the encumbrance certificate and so also the records pertaining to a registering authority relating to the suit property as found in items one to seven and so also the entry as found in the encumbrance certificate for the period 01.04.2004 to 26.11.2008 as per entry number one reflecting the same transaction between Sri. Srivatsan Rangachari and C. Ramesh who are the defendants six and seven are fraudulent entries and hence not binding on the plaintiffs.

b. For a judgment and decree for mandatory injunction by way of a direction to the defendants one to three to delete/revoke the entries as found in the encumbrance certificate and all the records pertaining to the registering authority as relating to the transaction reflected in items one to seven for the period 01.04.1987 to 18.12.2007 and the entry as found for the period 01.04.2004 to 26.11.2008 as per the encumbrance certificate issued by the defendant number three as relating to the suit property.

c. For cost of the suit.

d. For such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstance of the case”.

3. For the sake of convenience, for brief narration of pleadings and discussion, the parties are referred to with respect to their position in the suit. Subject matter of the litigation is a vacant site no 818, IV Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru, measuring east to west 12.20 mtrs and north to south 18.30 mtrs (referred to as ‘schedule property’ hereafter). The Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) allotted the schedule property to plaintiffs’ vendor, K.N. Krishna Murthy on 30.01.1988 and issued possession certificate also. The BDA executed a lease-cum-sale deed in favour of Krishna Murthy and then an absolute sale deed in his favour an 20.08.2007. The plaintiffs being convinced about title of their vendor with regard to schedule property purchased it under registered sale deed dated 18.02.2010.

4. Before purchasing the schedule property, the plaintiffs also learnt that the 7th defendant, a purchaser of schedule property from 6th defendant had filed a writ petition, (WP 14037/2008) in this court questioning the cancellation of allotment and sale of schedule property in favour of 6th defendant by executing a deed of cancellation dated 10.07.2007. In the said writ petition, an enquiry was ordered with regard to cancellation of sale deed by affording opportunity to all the parties to substantiate their stand, and accordingly, the BDA held an enquiry again and passed an order on 27.08.2009 confirming the order of revocation or cancellation of allotment to 6th defendant. Being aware of all these proceedings, the plaintiffs, in order to ensure that there are no illegal and fraudulent entries in the encumbrance register in respect of schedule property, applied for issuance of encumbrance certificate. To their shock, they found certain entries being made in the name of 4th and 5th defendants; the 4th defendant claiming to be an allottee of schedule property from the BDA had conveyed the said property to the 5th defendant under a document dated 19.10.2005. Thereafter the plaintiff issued notice to defendants No.1 to 3 for deletion of the names of defendants 4 to 7. Since no action was taken pursuant to their notice, they brought the suit for aforesaid reliefs.

5. Defendants 1 to 3 being the authorities and officer of the Department of Registration, Government of Karnataka, in their statement denied their authority to cancel the entries in the encumbrance register. They also stated that they did not ha