In a second appeal regarding declaration of title, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the lower courts' finding that a sale deed executed in 2010 but registered in 2012 violated Section 23 of the Registration Act.
The regular second appeal filed by the unsuccessful defendant is dismissed, affirming the decree in favour of the absolute owner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI.B.PRADEEP RAJ S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.2430, 1ST CROSS HOSBENDEKERI K.R.MOHALLA MYSURU - 570004
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE)
AND
2
K.R.MOHALLA MYSURU - 570004
3
1ST FLOOR NARAYANA SASTRY ROAD MYSURU - 570004
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; NOTICE TO R.3 TO R8 IS D/W V/O DATED 29.06.2022; R.2 AND R.9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.259/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.472/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and consequently, decreeing the suit.
as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
4
5
6
defendant No.1. The said documents were taken on record by permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence under Order 41 Rule 28 of CPC. The sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 was marked as Ex.P.1.
7
under the Registration Act and therefore, on reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court was of the view that the sale deed executed by the erstwhile vendor through GPA Holder in favour of one K.Savitha dated 18.03.2011 was a valid transaction and consequently, title passed on the said K.Savitha, who in turn, has sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff herein.
8
9
favour of defendant No.1 was marked as Ex.P.13. The Appellate Court found that the sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1 on 25.11.2010, but, however, the sale deed was registered on 21.05.2012.
"23. Time for presenting documents.— Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution:
Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final.
1[23A. Re-registration of certain documents.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, if in any case a document requiring registration has
10
been accepted for registration by a Registrar or Sub-Registrar from a person not duly empowered to present the same, and has been registered, any person claiming under such document may, within four months form his first becoming aware that the registration of such document is invalid, present such document or cause the same to be presented, in accordance with the provisions of Part VI for re-registration in the office of the Registrar of the district in which the document was originally registered; and upon the Registrar being satisfied that the document was so accepted for registration from a person not duly empowered to present the same, he shall proceed to the re-registration of the document as if it has not been previously registered, and as if such presentation for re-registration was a presentation for registration made within the time allowed therefore under Part IV, and all the provisions of this Act, as to registration of documents, shall apply to such re-registration; and such document, if duly re-registered in accordance with the provisions of this
11
section, shall be deemed to have been duly registered for all purposes from the date of its original registration:
Provided that, within three months from the twelfth day of September, 1917, any person claiming under a document to which this section applies may present the same or cause the same to be presented for re-registration in accordance with this section, whatever may have been the time when he first became aware that the registration of the document was invalid."
12
hand, defendant No.1 has placed reliance on the sale deed. The title would pass on only when the sale deed is executed in accordance with law. Under Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document will not affect any transfer of immovable property. The sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 would not create any title as the sale deed is in violation of Section 23 of the Act. The time stipulated under Section 23 of the Act is four months. What can be inferred from Section 23 of the Act, if the document is registered within stipulated period, it may relate back to the date of the execution. In the present case on hand, the sale deed is sought to be registered after expiry of four months. Therefore, the registration of the document itself was not in accordance with law and the same is contrary to Section 23 of the Registration Act. It is in this background, this Court would find that defendant No.1 has not acquired valid right and title pertaining to the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in recording a finding that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 will not bind on the plaintiff. The
13
Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The judgment and decree rendered by the Appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any illegalities and infirmities. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
This Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a sale deed registered after the period prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act creates any valid right or title in favour of the transferee.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI.B.PRADEEP RAJ
C.VINOD KUMAR
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
