S. No.117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

RSA No.1304 of 2020 Date of Decision:11.03.2025 Sa’sh Kumar .....Appellant Vs.

The Registrar, Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)

Suit for declara(cid:28)on filed by plain(cid:28)ff- Sa(cid:28)sh Kumar (appellant herein)

was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.12.2015. Appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 03.03.2020. Against these concurrent findings, the plain(cid:28)ff of the case has approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second appeal.

2. According to plain(cid:28)ff (appellant herein), defendant No.2 – Sukhbir (respondent No.2 herein) had sold 02 kanal 18 Marlas of land to him for considera(cid:28)on of ₹4,35,000/-. The en(cid:28)re sale considera(cid:28)on was paid at the (cid:28)me of execu(cid:28)on of the sale deed. A6er comple(cid:28)ng the formali(cid:28)es, when sale deed was presented for registra(cid:28)on before the Sub Registrar, Gharaunda - defendant No.3 (respondent No.3 herein), he refused to register the sale deed on the ground that there was some restrain order passed by the Civil Court in suit (cid:28)led “Naresh Kumar Vs. Sukhbir Singh”. On applica(cid:28)on moved under Sec(cid:28)on 77 of Registra(cid:28)on Act, 1908 to the Registrar, Karnal - defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), ma;er was remanded to the Sub-Registrar for deciding the ma;er afresh. However, Sub Registrar, Gharaunda again refused to register the sale deed on 15.02.2011 by ci(cid:28)ng the restrain order of the Civil Court. Appeal filed before Registrar, Karnal against the order of Sub Registrar was dismissed on 26.04.2011. Claiming that there was no restrain order regarding aliena(cid:28)on of the property in dispute and that Sub Registrar, Gharaunda has commi;ed illegality in refusing the registra(cid:28)on of the sale deed, plain(cid:28)ff prayed for issuing necessary direc(cid:28)on to defendant No.1 to register the sale deed.

3.1 Defendants No.1 and 3 contested the suit by pleading restrain orders of the Civil Court and submi;ed that at the (cid:28)me of presenta(cid:28)on of the sale deed for registra(cid:28)on, they were not aware that restrain order has already been vacated.

3.2 Defendant No.2 – vendor denied the execu(cid:28)on of the sale deed or receipt of considera(cid:28)on. According to him, plain(cid:28)ff had requested him to stand guarantor for him in respect of loan, to which he (defendant No.2) had agreed. Plain(cid:28)ff took him to Tehsil Gharaunda on the pretext of execu(cid:28)ng the guarantee deed and obtained his thumb impressions on several papers and later on, he came to know that instead of geBng the guarantee deed prepared, plain(cid:28)ff got prepared a sale deed. This defendant further pleaded that under the garb of declara(cid:28)on, plain(cid:28)ff was claiming the relief of specific performance and so, the suit was not maintainable.

4. A6er framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.12.2015 and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on

03.03.2020.

5. Assailing the above orders, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that since there was no restrain order of any Civil Court at the (cid:28)me of presenta(cid:28)on of the sale deed, therefore, the Courts below commi;ed error in dismissing the suit.

6. This Court does not find merit in the conten(cid:28)on. As no(cid:28)ced by the Appellate Court, defendant No.2 i.e. alleged vendor of the plain(cid:28)ff had denied the execu(cid:28)on of the sale deed or to have received the considera(cid:28)on. In these circumstances, even if it be assumed that there was no restrain order of any Civil Court for registra(cid:28)on of the sale deed, the Sub Registrar s(cid:28)ll could not be directed to register the sale deed, once the proposed vendor had denied the