The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application to reject a letter as unregistered. The Court held that the letter was merely an expression of intention to quit and did not create or extinguish any right in immovable property, thus not requiring compulsory registration.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13336 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S UNITED GROUPS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. RAVINANDAN S/O LATE SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.119, MADIVALA STREET, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 024.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHENDRA HOTELS REPRESENTED BY HIS PARTNERS
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH M.G., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.786/2018 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2019 PASSED ON I.A NO.VIII FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN O.S.NO.786/2018 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The defendant in O.S. No.786/2018 on the file of IX Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) has filed this petition challenging an order dated 25.09.2019 by which an application (I.A. No.VIII) filed by it under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act, 1908’) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for brevity) was rejected.
not mandate the registration of cancellation of a lease deed. The Trial Court further held that even if the letter dated 16.04.2018 is construed as cancellation of a registered lease deed, the same was not compulsorily registrable. It also held that the said letter indicated that the defendant being unable to run the business was handing over possession of the business to the plaintiff and that it did not reveal anything about the cancellation of the lease deed dated 25.08.2016. Consequently, it rejected the application (I.A. No.VIII) filed by the defendant in terms of the impugned order.
contended that by virtue of the letter dated 16.04.2018, the rights of the defendant as a lessee in respect of the suit schedule property were sought to be extinguished and therefore, the same required compulsory registration. He submitted that a registered document should be cancelled
NC: 2024:KHC:12995 WP No. 13336 of 2021
by another registered document and not by a letter, more particularly, the one set up by the plaintiff.
on the other hand contended that the letter dated 16.04.2018 was an unilateral expression of interest on the part of the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and therefore, the said document was neither compulsorily registrable nor stamp duty was payable on it.
learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
"Dear Sir,
I along with my partners have taken your hotel for lease on monthly rent basis, due to the demontenization and non cooperation of my partners I am not able to run the hotel and pay the rent regularly and also not able to clear the dues to the concerned authorities. Therefore today I am intending to give the physical possession of the hotel to you by vacating hotel. I am ready for the amicable settlement of deposit amount, rent and
other applicable taxes till date from my side at possible earliest and I further request you to return my deposit amount after adjusting the rent and taxes due from me. From today I agreed not to intervene with the possession as well as business of your hotel and I am hereby withdrawing all my rights and liberties over the hotel property and you can carry on the business of the hotel in your desired manner.
Thanking you
Yours sincerely"
NC: 2024:KHC:12995 WP No. 13336 of 2021
Therefore, the said letter did not result in extinguishing of the right of the defendant as contended. The Trial Court was therefore right in holding that the said document did not attract compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Act, 1908. There is no error committed by the Trial Court.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a letter stating intention to quit leased premises and hand over possession extinguishes rights in immovable property requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s United Groups
Mahendra Hotels
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
