ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.25516 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Smt. Manjuli Naik @ Manjuli Kumari Nayak

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Orissa & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Karunakar Rath, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 18.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 18.09.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the District Sub-Registrar, Sundargarh (O.P. No.4) in the district of Sundargarh to accept the deed of sale of the petitioner for registration, because, the District Sub-Registrar, Sundargarh (O.P. No.4) orally refused to receive that deed for sale for registration stating that, her co- sharers have not signed in that deed for sale and there is no document showing the falling of the sold properties in her share through partition.

2. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

3. The law is very much clear that, the District Sub- Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document, when the same is presented for registration. He/she is either to register the document or to refuse to register the same indicating the reasons for non-registration, if that document is not legally fit for registration.

According to The Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988, when a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the District Sub-Registrar to receive the same, but if the said document is not in compliance with the provisions of law, the District Sub- Registrar may refuse to accept that document for registration assigning the reasons in writing about the same.

4. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in a decision 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) and in a case between Antaryami Nayak Vs. State of Odisha & Others in WP(C) No.18548 of 2025 decided on 11.07.2025 that, “the Sub-Registrar/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.

5. Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent right/power to a co-sharer of a joint property like the petitioner to transfer/alienate his/her undivided share in his/her joint property without the consent of his/her other co-sharer or co-sharers and District Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse to receive the sale deed, if presented for registration by co-sharer like the petitioner in this matter even if the said deed for sale is executed without the consent and signature of his/her other co-sharer as vendor with the petitioner.

On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the decision between Damodar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided on 03.04.2025 in WP(C)

No.4340 of 2025 wherein it has been held that, As per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882, co-

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 co-owner of the same indicating boundaries thereof, still then, the said transfer/sale 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 co- owner/co-sharer to alienate his/her undivided share/inter