Holding

The Registrar must stay registration proceedings on a disputed sale deed pending a civil suit, and the High Court erred in refusing to stay; therefore the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Devika Rani allegedly executed a sale deed that was never registered. K.T. Plantations filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the deed was valid, while Devika Rani denied ever executing it, alleging fraud. The Sub‑Registrar refused to register the deed and the matter was appealed to the District Registrar; the appellant asked for a stay of the appeal because the suit was pending, but the Registrar proceeded and the High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a stay. The Supreme Court examined whether the Registrar was justified in hearing the appeal despite the contested execution and whether the High Court erred in refusing a stay. It held that when the executant disputes the deed and a civil suit is pending, the Registrar must stay his proceedings and await a court decree, and that the High Court was wrong to refuse the stay. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s orders were set aside, the registrar was directed not to proceed until the suit is decided, and the trial court was ordered to dispose of the suit within a year.

Issues considered

Whether the District Registrar may proceed with hearing an appeal for registration when the execution of the sale deed is contested and a civil suit is pending.
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to stay the registrar’s proceedings pending the outcome of the civil suit.
Interpretation of Sections 34(3), 72, 73, 49 and 77(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 in the context of a disputed document.

Legislation cited

Registration Act, 1908s. 34(3), s. 49, s. 72, s. 73, s. 77(2)

Subjects

registrationsale deeddisputed executioncivil suit pendingregistrar discretionSection 77Section 49stay of proceedingsappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

MRS. MARY JOYCE POONACHA A
v.
MIS K.T. PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.

JANUARY 19, 1995

(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) B

Registration Act, 190~Sections 34(3), 72 & 73-Registration-Sale
deed for land-Executant not present at time of registration-Execution of sale
deed in controversy-Civil suit pending-Registration refused-Appeal-Prayer
to stay proceedings-Whether Registrar was right in proceeding with hearing C
of appeaHfeld, No.

One D had allegedly executed a sale deed but the same was not
registered. Respondent filed a civil suit for. declaration that the said sale
deed executed by D in his favour was valid and binding on her. The alleged
executant D denied the execution of the-sale deed and the agreements to D
sell in favour of the respondent No. 1. She alleged that the agreements and
deed of sale were initiated by fraud and were unenforceable in the eye of
law.

The Sub-Registrar refused to register the document. On appeal, E
when the Registrar was proceeding to hear the appeal to register the
document, the appellant sought for stay of further proceedings in view of
the pendency of the suit. The Registrar declined to stay the proceedings.
The appellant filed writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed.
Writ Appeal filed against the judgment was also dismissed. Hence this
• Appeal. F

The question raised for consideration was whether the District
Registrar was right in proceeding with the hearing of the appeal and
whether the High Court was right in declining to stay the proceedings
before the District Registrar. G
Allowed the appeal, this Court.

HELD : 1.1. Under Ss. 72 and 73 of the Registration Act, undoub-
tedly, the existence of the power of the Registrar to proceed with the appeal
is not disputed and cannot be disputed. But the question is of the H
491
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R. .
A p~opriety and justness of the exercise of the power; whether he was right
in his exercise of discretion to proceed with the hearing of the appeal.
When the executant had denied the execution of the alleged sale deed and
passing of the consideration and the dispute when was pending trial in the
---
civil suit filed by the alleged vendee itself, the appropriate course should "
have been that the Registrar should have stayed his hands and directed
B the plaintiff to obtain appropriate direction from the Civil Court or a
decree. When the appellant approached the High Court, the High Court
also should have directed the Civil Judge to dispose of the suit. Then the
Registrar should have heard the appeal. Instead, the High Court dis-
missed the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. Therefore, the orders of the
-- ~

c High Court are set aside. The District Registrar shall not proceed further
with the hearing of the matter till the civil suit is disposed of. (495-A-D]

1.2 When execution of sale deed is in controversy and is subject
matter of a suit, s.77(2) lifts the bar of s.49(3) and enables the court to
look into the document for adjudicating the controversy. In these cir-
D cumstances, the trial court is directed to look into the document only for __ .....
the limited purpose of finding out whether D had executed the impugned
sale deed alleged to have been executed by her and not for any other
purpose. (495-F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3094 of
E
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.94 of the Karnataka High
Court in W!A. No. 2667 of 1993.

F P.C. Jain, S.K. Kulkarni, Jayavittal Kolar, D.L.N. Rao, Shankar
Narayanan and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, (N.P.) for the Appellant.
x-\..
.
R.F. Nariman, Eshwarappa, Nangin Reddy, J.B. Dadachanji,
S.Sukumaran and P.D. Tyagi for the Respondents.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have heard the counsel on either side at length. This appeal by
special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court
H of Karnataka, dated 22.6.1994 made in W.A.No. 2667/93.
M.J. POONACHAv. K.T. PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. 493

The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under : A

One Devika Rani had allegedly executed an agreement on July 30,
1991 and supplemental agreement on September 21, 1991 respectively to
sell 223 acres of land in Tataguni Estates on the outskirts of Banglore City.
It had been claimed that in furtherance thereof she had executed a sale
deed, said to be on 16.2.1992 but the same was not registered. Respondent B
No. 1 filed O.S. No. 122/92 in the court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural
for declaration that the said sale deed dt. 16.2.92 executed by Mrs. Devika
Rani Reerch in its favour was valid and binding on her and also for
mandatory injunction restraining her from creating any encumbrances on
the said property or from transferring it and for a further perpetual C
injunction restraining her from interfering with his alleged possession and
enjoyment of the property. Devika Rani filed her written statement on
2.7.1992 whereby she denied the execution of the sale deed and the
agreements to sell in favour of the respondent No. 1 and of the passing of
consideration under them. Thus, according to the defendant, she did not
execute any agreement to sell or any sale deed in favour of the respondent D
No.l in respect of the suit schedule property and the same is bogus and
vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation.

Respondent No. 1 has been consistently making efforts and attempts
to grab the property of the defendant and their earlier suit No. O.S.
3692/92 which was filed in the City Civil Court at Bangalore was withdrawn E
by them. The present suit had been filed with an additional relief of
declaration also. Evidently, the plaintiff was filing speculative and false
suits so as to somehow coerce the defendant to sell away her estate to the
plaintiff. This defendant had not executed any agreement or supplementary
agreement to sell nor had made any application to the Income Tax
Authorities nor had she executed an absolute sale deed. The entire agree- F
ment of sale and sale deed are nothing but sham and bogus and a collusive
job of KT. Bhagath, the Managing Director of the KT. Plantations and f·
Devdas and Jude Devdas. The agreements to sell and deed of sale were
vitiated by fraud and were unenforceable in the eye of law. This defendant
reiterated that she has not handed over possession of the suit schedule G
property to respondent No.1 and that she was in possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property as its absolute owner thereof. In support
thereof, she has raised several contentions which are not relevant for the
disposal of this appeal.

The Sub-Registrar, Kengeri in his endorsement dated 30.7.92 refused H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R. ·

A to register the document, the sale-deed. This situated led respondent No.1
to file an appeal before the District Registrar within thirty days on 28.8.92. ..,..._..
When the Registrar was proceeding to hear the appeal to register the
document the appellant sought for stay of further proceedings to view of
the pendency of the suit but he declined to stay the proceedings. Now it is
an admitted fact that Devika Rani died subsequently. The appellant filed
B W.P. No~ 22677/93 in the High Court and the learned Single Judge by his
order dated 23.9.93 dismissed the same. On small appeal, as stated earlier,
the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal, Thus, this appeal by special
leave.
..., ..
The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the Dist.
c Registrar was right in proceeding with the hearing of· the appeal and
whether the High Court was right in declining to stay the proceedings
before the District Registrar. On a consideration of the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case, we are of the view that both the District Registrar
committed a palpable error of law in proceeding with the matter and the
D High Court was unjustified in refusing to interfere. ~-...

Section 34(3) of the Registration Act, 1908, (for short, 'the Act'),
empowers the Registrar when a document is presented for registration to
enquire and satisfy himself on certain matters. Section 34(3) reads :

E "34(3) The registering officer shall thereupon --

(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the
persons by whom it purports to have been executed;

(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing
before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and
:..- "'..
F
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative,
assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to
appear." (Emphasis supplied)

The Sub-Registrar is required to satisfy himself with the due execu-
G
tion of the document/deed said to have been executed by Devika Rani since
she herself was not present at the time of registration of the document.
Consequently, the appeal came to be filed. It was within his po~r that ""
before proceeding to register the alleged conveyance said to have been
executed by Devika Rani to satisfy himself whether or not she executed it
H and whether or not the person presented on her behalf was authorised to
M.J.POONACHAv. K.T.PLANTATIONSPVf.LTD. 495

have it registered on her behalf. He was also empowered to summon her A
to appe~r before him before proceeding to register the document. Under
the circumstances he refused to register the document. Under ss.72 and
73, of the Act, undoubtedly, the existence of the power of the Registrar to
proceed with the appeal is not disputed and cannot be disputed. But the
·question is of the propriety and justness of the exercise of the power.
Whether he was right in his exercise of discretion to proceed with the B
hearing of the appeal. As stated earlier, when the executant has denied the
execution of the alleged sale deed and passing of the consideration as on
2.7.92 and the dispute when was pending trial in the civil suit filed by the
alleged vendee itself. The appropriate course should have been that the
Registrar should have stayed his hands and directed the plaintiff to ob- C
tained appropriate direction from the Civil Court or a decree. When the
appellant approached the High Court, the High Court also should. have
directed the Civil Judge to dispose of the suit. Then the Registrar should
have heard 'the appeal. Instead, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition
and Writ Appeal. Therefore, the orders of the High Court are set aside.
There shall be a direction to the District Registrar not to proceed further D
with the hearing of the matter till the civil suit is. disposed of. The trial
court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within
a period of one year from today. Depending upon the result in the suit, the
District Registrar shall take further action.

It is true as rightly contended by Shri R.F. Nariman, the learned E
senior counsel, that by operation of the prohibition contained in s.49 of the
Act the umegistered impugned document effecting the immovable proper-
ty cannot be looked into. Since the suit is not against an order under sec.77
of the Act, lifting of the bar provided by sec. 77(2) will come to the aid of
the plaintiff. It indicates that when execution of sale deed is in contrbversy F
and is subject matter of a suit, s.77(2) lifts the bar of s.49(c) and enables
the court to look into the document for adjudicating the controversy. In
these circumstances, we direct the trial court to look into the document
only for the limited purpose of finding out whether Devika Rani had
executed the impugned sale deed alleged to have been executed by her and
not for any other purpose. Status quo as on date of suit shall continue till G
the suit is disposed of.

The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without
.-:osts.

A.G. Appeal allowed.