Court emphasized that non-communication of an order affects limitation commencement, allowing appeals within reasonable time frames. Omission of statutory requirements can render previous refusals invalid and lead to registration of documents.

CAV ORDER

1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue of writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or directions quashing the order No.RA4/2008-09 dated 31.10.2009 passed by the 1^st Respondent (Annexure-M)

ii. Issue any other writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case including awarding cost of this writ petition.

2. The subject property forms part of land bearing Sy.No.18 (1C, 1A, 1A), totally measuring 35 acres, which originally belonged to the joint family of Sri Kuppaswamy Naidu. Upon partition among him and his seven sons, an extent of 3 acres 29 guntas was allotted to the share of Sri V.K. Kamalanabhan. Petitioner No.1 is his wife and Respondent No.5 is their son.

3. It is the specific case of the Petitioners that Sri V.K. Kamalanabhan was suffering from prolonged mental illness and was, for a considerable period, incapable of understanding the nature of transactions or entering into any valid contract. Notwithstanding this alleged incapacity, Sri Sadappa, the father of Respondent Nos.3 and 4, propounded a sale deed said to have been executed by Sri Kamalanabhan and presented the same for registration before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South, on 18.02.1988.

4. At the time of presentation of the said document for registration, the mandatory clearance certificate contemplated under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had not been produced. In view of such non-production, the Sub-Registrar refused registration and assigned the document a pending number, namely 96-P-642/87-88. The document thus remained unregistered and pending.

5. According to the Petitioners, no further steps were taken by Sri Sadappa to cure the defect or to comply with the statutory requirement. Sri Sadappa is stated to have died on 03.08.2002 without producing the income tax clearance certificate and without taking any steps to complete the registration process. The Petitioners assert that the transaction was never concluded; the registration remained incomplete; no consequential entries were effected in the revenue records; and the katha continued to stand in the name of Sri Kamalanabhan.

6. The Petitioners further state that Sri Kamalanabhan, owing to his mental condition, had left the matrimonial home, and his whereabouts remained unknown to the family. After the lapse of seven years without any information regarding his existence, he was presumed to be dead in accordance with law. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5 approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of their names in respect of the property. By order dated 30.04.2005 in M.R. No.130/2004, their names came to be entered in the revenue records.

7. It is contended by the Petitioners that under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 , read with Rule 187 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, a document presented for registration and refused by the Sub-Registrar cannot be kept pending indefinitely and that the power to keep such a document pending is confined to a limited statutory period of four months. The sale deed in question having been presented and refused on 18.02.1988, and no compliance having been made within the prescribed period, the Petitioners contend that the document could not have been legally revived or acted upon after the lapse of several years.

8. However, it transpired that on 10.11.2000, the Sub- Registrar passed an order observing that the document could not be refused registration. Subsequently, Respondent Nos.3 and 4, claiming to be the children and legal representatives of Sri Sadappa, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.3/2005-06 before the District Registrar on 18.08.2005. In the said appeal, neither Petitioner No.1 nor Respondent No.5 were arrayed as parties. An application for condonation of delay was filed and allowed. By order dated 10.01.2006, the appeal was allowed and a direction was issued to register the sale deed.

9. In the interregnum,