Karnataka High Court: Once Civil Court has Rejected Suit for Specific Performance Registrar Cannot Direct Registration of Sale Deed

Karnataka High Court: Once Civil Court has Rejected Suit for Specific Performance Registrar Cannot Direct Registration of Sale Deed

The Karnataka High Court has observed that when the Civil Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract, the District Registrar directing registration of sale agreement, ignoring the Civil court order, is contrary to law.

A single judge 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.

In the present case, the petitioner claimed to be the absolute owner of the petition property. It was stated in the petition that, respondent No.3 has alleged that the petitioners have executed an agreement of sale in his favor to sell the suit property. The respondent No.3 presented the sale deed before the sub-registrar but it was refused under 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.

Despite the dismissal, the District Registrar proceeded with the appeal by holding an enquiry and passed the impugned order.

The issue that came up for consideration was whether the registration under Section 73 of the Registration Act was justified in overlooking the judgment decided by the Civil Court.

The Court noted that the petitioners were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. It was also not in dispute that the suit filed by respondent No.3 seeking for specific performance of contract on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 9 November, 1998 and to execute the registered sale deed was contested by the petitioners herein and ultimately, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.3 came to be dismissed on 29 March, 2010 and the said order remained unchallenged.

The Court noted that suit was dismissed during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.1-the District Registrar when the order was passed on 27 September, 2013.

The Court perused the provisions that were applicable to be considered in the present petition were, Sections 32, 34, 35 and 72 of the Registration Act.

In this regard, the judge observed, “The powers of the Registrars while dealing with an application under Section 73, no doubt is wider than the power, which has entrusted to the Sub-Registrar under Section 35, making it evident that the Sub-Registrar under Section 35 (3) (a) can mandatorily refuse registration when the execution of a document is denied by the person purported to have executed the document, on the other hand, the Registrar is entrusted with the power to conduct an enquiry under Section 73 by following procedures as envisaged under Section 74.”

Averting to the present case, the Court noted that the Registrar while exercising the power conferred under Section 74 had arrived at a finding that the petitioners had appeared and admitted their signatures to the document in question and therefore, was liable to be registered without considering the settled proposition of law that mere signing of an instrument would not amount to an execution as held by the Apex Court in the case of Veena Singh (Dead) vs. District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) and Another (2022).

“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 Court remarked.

The Court appositely stated 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 was contrary to law and the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Registrar itself lacked bona fide in view of the decree of the Civil Court by its judgment dated 23 September, 2010.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 27 September, 2013 was set aside.