Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2608
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Ananda Chandra Behera, J
Balaram Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.19270 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.C. Panda, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, S.C.
Co-owners possess the inherent right to alienate their undivided interest without consent from other co-owners.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 227 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 71 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 44 - The petitioner sought registration of a deed for sale despite being a co-owner, which was orally refused by the Sub-Registrar. The court held that a co-owner has the inherent right to alienate their undivided share without consent from other co-owners. Previous case law established that any refusal to register without proper grounds is invalid. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 6)
(B) Registration - The court reiterated that oral denials by registration authorities contravene statutory provisions. The Sub-Registrar was mandated to register the deed when presented by the petitioner, as executive instructions contradicting the right to alienate are deemed non-est. (Pars 2, 3, 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner demanded registration of a sale deed which was refused on the grounds of lacking consent from co-owners, despite legal provisions allowing such alienation.
Findings of Court:
The refusal by the Sub-Registrar was ruled unlawful and he was directed to accept the deed for registration based on the established legal principles of co-ownership.
Issues: The main question was whether a co-owner can register a deed of sale without the consent of other co-owners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the principle that co-owners possess an inherent right to sell their undivided share without requiring collective consent from others.
Result: Writ petition disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sub-registrar's obligations regarding document receipt and registration. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 2. final disposition of the writ petition. (Para 5 , 7) |
P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 18.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 18.07.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA , J.(cid:0)‡
1. This writ petition under
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. On the aspect of non-receiving of any deed for sale through verbal denial and alienation of property by one co- owner without the consent of other co-owners has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: (i). In a case between North East Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 220 (Andhra Pradesh) that, the Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive the document and would consider the fitness of it for registration or otherwise. Section 71 of the Registration Act , 1908 empowers the Registration Authorities to receive a document which is presented for registration and process the same, and thereafter, either register such sale deed or any other document or pass a refusal order.
(ii). in a case between Damodar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided in WP(C)
No.4340 of 2025 on dated 03.04.2025 that, (cid:0)·(cid:0)$(cid:0)V(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)S(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)6(cid:0)H(cid:0)F(cid:0)W(cid:0)L(cid:0)R(cid:0)Q(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)(cid:23)(cid:0)(cid:23)(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)R(cid:0)I(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)W(cid:0)K(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)7-(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)3(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)$(cid:0)F(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:15)(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)(cid:20)(cid:0)(cid:27)
sharer/co-owner has his/her inherent right to alienate his/her share/interest in the Joint and Undivided properties to the extent of his/her share. Therefore, even there will be any sale of specific portion of land in the joint and undivided properties by one co-owner of the same indicating boundaries thereof, still then, the said transfer/sell would be deemed as a transfer of share of the vendor in the said joint and undivided property.
Any executive instruction or circular issued by any authority including Government contrary to the statutory law envisaged under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 restricting a co-
owner/co-sharer to alienate his/her undivided share/interest in the joint and undivided property shall be deemed as non-est. Because, executive instructions and circulars have no applicability where statutory law governs the (cid:0)I(cid:0)L(cid:0)H(cid:0)O (cid:0) G(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)µ
4. By applying the above clarified propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (Opp. Party No.3) should not have refused orally to receive the deed for sale presented by the petitioner for registration and also should not have refused to register the said deed on the ground that, he (petitioner) is trying to alienate/transfer his undivided interest in the joint properties without the consent of his co-owners. Because, as per law, he (petitioner) alone has his inherent right to sell his undivided share in his joint and undivided properties without the consent of his co-
owners.
5. For which, on the basis of the above findings and observations, this writ petition is to be dispo
