In a second appeal arising from the refusal to register a sale-deed, the High Court held that the Sub Registrar correctly declined registration due to the existence of interim status quo orders and missing NOC under the Cooperative Societies Act. The appeal was dismissed.
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.
RSA No.4969 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4969 of 2010
Date of Decision: January 19, 2012
Jagmal Singh and others
.......Appellants
Versus
Joint Sub Registrar, Kalayat and others
.......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal before this Court. 2. A suit under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short '1908 Act') for the passing of a decree for mandatory injunction vide which defendant No.1 was to be directed to register a document i.e. sale-deed dated 3.1.2006 was filed by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the document of sale was executed by defendants No.2 to 65 in favour of the plaintiffs on 3.1.2006 in respect of land measuring 165 K-8 M of village Bata, Tehsil and District Kaithal for a consideration of `40 lacs.
RSA No.4969 of 2010
2
deed on the basis of a letter from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kaithal dated 11.11.2005 wherein it had been stated that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal had granted status quo order regarding possession vide order dated 31.12.2001 and even this Court vide order dated 7.2.2002 had passed the order of status quo regarding possession pertaining to the disputed land. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 23.12.2005 had been served on defendant No.1 to the effect that a Co-operative Society would need a prior permission for sale of land under Section 89 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short '1984 Act'). A reference was also made to an order dated 12.1.2006 passed by this Court in RSA No.1457 of 2001 vide which alienation of the disputed land had been stayed. It was pleaded in the suit that the reasons assigned by defendant No.1 in the order dated 3.1.2006 were not valid and defendant No.1 had, as such, shown dereliction of duty and violated the mandatory provisions of the law under the 1908 Act while refusing to register the sale-deed, dated 3.1.2006.
RSA No.4969 of 2010
3
the NOC under the provisions of the 1984 Act.
framed:
RSA No.4969 of 2010
4
registration of the sale-deed. The requirement was only to ensure that the document presented for registration was, in fact, executed. Such enquiry could not extend so as to look into the title of the vendors as mentioned in the sale-deed. It was also argued that on the date of presentation of the sale document dated 3.1.2006, there was no interim order passed by the High Court as regards alienation. Mr.Gupta would further contend that the provisions of Section 89 of 1984 Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
RSA No.4969 of 2010
5
appellants is to be accepted that the scope of enquiry by a Sub Registrar under Sections 34 and 35 of the 1908 Act is limited only as regards obtaining the proof of execution of the document, still the fact cannot be lost sight of that the Sub Registrar, while holding a public office, would not merely proceed to register a document with closed eyes and would ignore the interim orders passed by the Courts below in respect of land which forms subject matter of the sale-deed presented before him and such interim orders having specifically brought to his notice.
RSA No.4969 of 2010
6
JANUARY 19, 2012
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sub Registrar was competent to refuse registration of the sale-deed citing pending litigation and interim status quo orders.
Whether the requirement of obtaining NOC under Section 89 of the 1984 Act was a pre-requisite for registration.
Whether an appeal against the refusal of registration should be allowed when the refusal was based on legal impediments.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagmal Singh and others
Joint Sub Registrar, Kalayat and others
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
