Registrar Can’t Direct Registration Of Sale Deed After Rejection Of Suit For Specific Performance By Civil Court: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement filed by the proposed purchaser is dismissed, the District Registrar directing registration of sale agreement, ignoring the Civil court order, is contrary to law. A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha set aside the order of District Registrar directing Sub-Registrar to register the...
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement filed by the proposed purchaser is dismissed, the District Registrar directing registration of sale agreement, ignoring the Civil court order, is contrary to law.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha set aside the order of District Registrar directing Sub-Registrar to register the document despite the civil court refusing relief of specific performance.
“On perusal of the order of the Registrar would make it evident that the Registrar is sitting over the judgment of the Civil Court by going to an extent of enquiring into the dispute between the parties when the Civil Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract,” the bench observed.
It was the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 has alleged that the petitioners have executed an agreement of sale in his favour to sell the suit property. The respondent No.3 presented the sale deed before the sub-registrar but it was refused Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, citing absence of petitioners.
Aggrieved by the order, respondent 3 preferred an appeal under Section 72 of Act before the District Registrar. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.3 filed a suit before the Civil Court seeking for a decree of specific performance of contract, in respect of agreement of sale. This suit came to be dismissed.
In spite of the dismissal, the District Registrar proceeded with the appeal by holding an enquiry and passed the impugned order.
The petitioners contended that District Registrar failed to appreciate that in an appeal filed under Section 72, the Registrar has no power to hold an enquiry. Reliance was placed on Apex court judgment in Avnash Rani & Anr. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ferozepur & Ors where it was held that the power of the Registrar is summary in nature and limited in operation and it cannot sit on the judgment of the Civil Court.
The bench noted that during the pendency of the application before the Registrar, the suit came to be dismissed and thus, the decision of the Registrar in directing the document to be registered is contrary to law.
"The Sub-Registrar refused to register the document and aggrieved by which, the application was filed by respondent No.3 before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Registration Act. It is necessary to note that during the pendency of the application before the Registrar, the suit came to be dismissed and thus, the decision of the Registrar in directing the document to be registered is contrary to law and the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Registrar itself lacks bonafide in view of the decree of the Civil Court," it held.
Case Title: A Vasudevachar & Others And The District Registrar & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.48476 OF 2013
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Date of Order: 29-05-2023
Appearance: Advocate M.S. Varadarajan for Petitioners.
AGA A R Sharadamba for R1 and R2.
Advocate T Srinivasan for R-3(c) (a, b, c, d).
Advocate K.S. Uday FOR R-3(d).