Karnataka High Court
A Vasudevachar & Others v. The District Registrar & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.48476 OF 2013
Bench- Hon’ble Justice K S Hemalekha
Decided On 29-05-2023
Facts of the case-
The petitioners in this case have raised a contention regarding respondent No.3’s claim that the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with him regarding the suit property. It is alleged that respondent No.3 presented the sale deed before the sub-registrar for registration, but the registration was refused under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, due to the absence of the petitioners.
Feeling aggrieved by this refusal, respondent No.3 chose to file an appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the District Registrar. However, during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 also filed a separate suit before the Civil Court seeking a decree for specific performance of the contract based on the agreement of sale. Subsequently, this suit was dismissed by the Civil Court.
Despite the dismissal of the suit, the District Registrar proceeded with the appeal by conducting an enquiry and ultimately passed the impugned order.
The petitioners argue that the District Registrar failed to properly consider that, in an appeal filed under Section 72, the Registrar does not possess the power to conduct an enquiry. They rely on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avnash Rani & Anr. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ferozepur & Ors. This judgment established that the power of the Registrar is of a summary nature and limited in operation, and the Registrar cannot override the judgment of the Civil Court.
In summary, the petitioners assert that the District Registrar erred by conducting an enquiry in the appeal filed under Section 72, as per the binding precedent set forth by the Apex Court in Avnash Rani & Anr. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ferozepur & Ors.
Relevant Provisions
| the Registration Act, 1908 | Related to |
| Sec. 34 | Enquiry before registration by registering officer |
Judgement
The court has rendered a decision stating that when a lawsuit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement, filed by the intended purchaser, is dismissed, it is contrary to the law for the District Registrar to direct the registration of the sale agreement while disregarding the order of the Civil court. The bench emphasized that during the pendency of the application before the Registrar, the aforementioned lawsuit was dismissed, thereby rendering the Registrar’s decision to order registration of the document contrary to the law.
In the present case, respondent No.3 approached the Sub-Registrar for the registration of a document, but the Sub-Registrar declined to register it. In response, respondent No.3 filed an application before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Registration Act. However, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of this application before the Registrar, the lawsuit in question was dismissed. Consequently, the court concluded that the Registrar’s decision to direct the registration of the document was in violation of the law, and the invocation of the Registrar’s jurisdiction lacked good faith, particularly in light of the Civil court’s decree.
In essence, the court held that when a lawsuit seeking specific performance is dismissed, it is unlawful for the Registrar to order the registration of the sale agreement. The Registrar’s decision must be in conformity with the law, and any invocation of the Registrar’s jurisdiction should be made in good faith, considering the existence of a decree by the Civil court.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
