Karnataka High Court
Smt Susheela vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2011
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B.Manohar
1.
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAEQGRIJORE
DATED THIS ON THE DAY OF FEBRUARY 20.1»)
wmr PE"i'I'1'1ON NO93331 1»1:2/'Q01.Q(C;M;-T«Sf19=;;2i§)«%7:
BETWEEN: * *
1 .
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANO.1}%IA§€§O:VV:
SMT.SUSHEELA .
W/O GURUDEVA SWAMY ,H1RAMA*:iH%T
AGED ABOUT 55 _YEARS_.._. jj
R/ATNQ323, '_ , ~-
SAI POORNA I-IIGH'I"S- ' 1 A
H.S.R LAYOUT * ' '
BANGALORE...
" ;:..v'fi3E3'I'I'1'IONER
(BY SRI:PRAS}viA£*J5P£{;P.v'N';O._A§jV'OCATE]
AND:
.. «:f§TATE 01*?
- .O..{)E--PART1\/EIEZNT OF REVENUE,
% » .VOIDELA;NAv SOUDHA
' AMBEDKAR VEEDH1
; =§3AN'GAL(9RE~1
'--..RE_PR§;SEN'i'ED BY ITS SECRETARY
siJB*REG1sTRAR
A' 'QHAMARAJA PET
" NEAR RAMESHWAR TEMPLE
3RD MAIN ROAD
/\f/
E .
Ix.)
CHAEVEARAJ PET
BANGALO RE. ... RES PONDENTS
{BY SRI.RAMACHANI)RA.R.NAIK. HCGP)
THESE wps FILED PRAYING TO
ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED _. 'Q :0? ._ A
ANNEXUREMC 1ssUED BY THE""'2N«:)5,_RE$1f>c>:$:DEN*Ié
AUTHORITY wrm REGARD TC.' EON
CERTIFIED COPEES OF GENERAL POWER 'O§ z%f§*F0,P§1\IEY
As ELLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND A'QA1NsTL*1'HVE' PRINCIPLES
OENATURALJUsT1cEff._ ' "
THESE Wan' PE'ifITI1_QVN.S_ HEARD
AND RESERV'E:h- ON FOR
EEONOUNcE:vIE.N'E---'OF 'T_H1S DAY, THE COURT
MADE
N DAQRDER
13ctitfiO'nc--::------««'has sought for quashing the
22?/A2010 issued by the second
res'pO 1 1Mdevr_}t' also sought for direction to the second
hespondefiit to issue certified copy Of the Genciral Power Of
dated 7354990 executed by Gangappa in favour
V' __F{ishO1"e Babu.
75.: /'
1 1/: /_4/
aw? i'
4_:~. .'
2. The petitioner has contended that
purchased site bearing No. l 15 formed .In .
measuring 30 X 40 feet situated...at__ An_napooj1j11esh=..variK'
LayoL.1t, Ulla} Main Road, lV?Ié1l?.'lath:aiii:'
Yeshwa-rithapura I-Eobli, Bangaiere North .'feiluk:._'from' oneul
Crangappa through his Power,l:oi'_ 'A3tt,orney:,._'Aholder one
Kishore Babu on 5-9-lQE;'ll;. 'she has been in
possession and However, one
person by politically influenced
p6I'SOI1 ltolinterfere with the peaceful
possession': and into the property and
breakv0_pe11ltheV d_oors_ ofsdlthe shed. in View of that, a
beenlodlged before the jurisdictional police.
Insame, the said Shivappa is creating
unnecess,::g.ryf';-Jroblern to the petitioner. In order to defend
3""«.__}i»ei.*se1f to file a necessary suit, she had applied for the
,rCopy. the Power of Attorney on the basis of which,
l.""uC3r.angappa sold the said land in favour of the petfiioner
before the Cc)i'npet;ent At.1t.'r1orii.y in Form No.22 as required
under Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. However, the
second respondent by its endorserneni: dated 2'2.9?.;t2,G'1'0
refused to issue a eertified copy of the Poxvenof
on the ground that the doetimeni:"i*egisi:e.red« _£tm:ier'*Boo'}:
No. 4 Cannot be issued to tirie pe___rs'o_ns oti_1ef~vt.'r1an'--the.VV
agent or a representative of patties as
provided under Se(ttion~..§7 of 15VV{%egl:istratiVon°hACt 1908
read with Rule 144 of Rules 1965
and also relied theio1;'de'i*' the Karnataka
Inforn'1a'ti'o'n"tCt)rnn§§is'sione'i' 385/APL 2008 dated
3«~7w2O0VV9-,. "Beingd by the said endorsement, the
petitioner pfefef1"e.d,'-th'is petition.
P.N. iearned counsei appearing for the
petitilponerhasidicontended that on the basis of the order
passediibyt' the State Information Commissioner in similar
_i;1at.te.i9s, the second respondent issued an endorsement
whicth is contrary to the facts of the present case.
an
."-'wk.
Wflr
'ta
\
E-'u1fi.'r'1er, Section 57' of tine Regist;raiio1": Act, 1908 provides
for issuance of certified copies of the do(:umer1t:s.,_ The
learned eounsei further submits that the'.H:"seeo:1d
respondent misunderstood and misread the'A.'.pr(3v1:Sio"n=
Section 57(3) of the Registrzition :Aet."'ii
that the owner of the said site "had e2_<e(tLitedA'av Povwerof,
Attorney in favour of one Kish'oir:e'iBabhu'"t.hI'<>s1:§gh"yirh'orIi the
petitioner has purcha'i;sed " 1orfoj§ie.rty. henee she is
Claiming her right under the Aftto1*ne}r and she is
entitled for 1%)?""€:hg:f'(}enera1 Power of
Attorney"d'éi1'1d.:.:ifso1i§ht aside the endorsement
with a direetioii 'th_ev«s;eeo1:1d respondent to issue a Copy
of the C_}ener'ais Power AG_fA't;[O1'n€y.
it hand, Sri.G.Ramaehandra Naik, HCGP
apptierin.g the respondents contended that the
"doeurn'entTs entered under Book No. 4 cannot be given.
r§{VLV;i1§ 344 Of Ka1'11ata'ka Registration Rules, 1965
..eohtemp1ates that the copies of the deeds in Book No. 4
E
g
* i,~./'
. 3
2';
\*x
6
Cannot: be graifleri to the pe1*sor1s i.ni;e:'est.ed in the
in any way other than as agents or repzresentatives..Qf the
parties to the deed. In the instant Case, the pe£;iv:tiitt{"rj1--ei*v»_¢is
neither an agent nor a 1'epresentatiVe. 'l_H(:n.ee.td
petitioner is not entitled for the (:§'3'1'3"'}V/"(J17 i_;h,e Ge:1¢.:*a,1 'Power
of Attorney, which was entered in :B_o(51~g No. Aaml ssiugvhtu
for dismissai of the Wit, petitidnV;"
5. I have carefully arguments
addressed byft}ie,rpart_iesL the endorsement
issued V3:)yh°ti'1e.V .:43€C($i:1C'l resV;pende"r"1't'.'V
6. The ._mateiiia1s'iQriijeeor-d clearly disclose that the
petitioner 'has p1Vi're.haseti_.»s.$ite No.1 '15 from one Gangappa
thr 'his Power of Attorney holder Kishore
B;a'b1__1V 1991. The said document was registered in
theeffiee'--th:eV'seC011d respondent. in order to defend her
pr0per.t,}:éA.Vand for init.ie1ting necessary proceedings against
'.,fjt.hei'e.r1er0achers, she had applied for certified coy of the
Ge:'1e1'a1 Power of A.tto3'ney e>«:e<:ut.ed by the ovmer of the
property in favotlr of Kishore Baht: on 7-5-1990 on the
basis of the said General Power of At.torney, the
has purchased the property. The seeonC3_ 'r£::s§:)o:idee_ij:tM"»
rejected the said appiieation s()Ie}yon'the..Ag'roioi:1ii tghat the b
doe'L1r11e_1.1ts :*egist:ered Li.i"3d€l° Book'No*..{% (:an'1;»ot.' be 'ifis_é'o;e"ti.VV
Further, the State I:n_fo1"n121tioh.,()ommiS3jo'ne1r by his order'
dated 34-2009 in 3$5"'_APfLE"2QO8 'h'e1d"' that the
document entered in of the Genera}
Power of Will cannot be
dise1os:ed'.'"' *
7. V111 oroI'er to.3-ppreeiiite the contention of the parties,
'*-it' isgfieéiessaty to'e:s<:21'rvr1ir1ed Section 57 of the Registration
reads as 'under:
57. 1QE:gist.ering Officers to aliow inspection of
" oé'rtaiif1 books and indexes, and to give certified
V n Copies of €I7.tTi('3S."
' ,'_',":_TT.'->'-W).
{1} Subject to the previous payment
of the fees payable in that behalf,
Books Nos} and 2 arid the lndexes_i"
relating to Book.No.i shail be at ail V.
open to inspectzion by any perso1'i'.'j'L"--.l 'V' A
applying to inspect the '
subject: to the pi'ovision;s..,.of se_~;'1tio"11--.f_62§= V' .
copies of emries in such boo'i+:s".siialI__.'be._ " V
given to all persons ap.ply'irig' for "snot:
Copies. _
(2) Subject to tlifi provisions,
copies of entries in Booi:,N'o.3 a11"d.in the
Index relatiiigfitheretoVsh_all"~--be given to
the persons executiiig. the'esjo»clurne11ts to
which such e_nt"ri_es_ rela?te.,l"dr._ to their
agentsg' aiidf after death of the
execiitaiits {but inot befor'e}" vtavany person
applgfiiigfor =cop"ies_; H r
{3}-. t.h'e"'same provisions,
c«opies'~."'V-__ * _ ' - entries in
'-Book --No_:4._'aiioi»..'in the Index relating
t'bereto°.sbail given to any person
eXe'ei_1ting'-- 'or claiming under the
'~docurrie.r_1ts _ to which such entries
i,,.e,,respeCtively" refer, or to his agent or
'}:epr'es_entat1've.
"{4}. The requisite search under this
.-seltjtion for entries in Books Nos.3 and 4
H lfishail be made only by the registering
officer.
(5) All copies given under this
section shall be signed and sealed by the
registering officer, and shall be
;
9
E1(§II1'iSSibiC for the purpese ei" proving the
C011{.E3l1f'.S of the original doei.imer1i:s.
"SeetieI1 57(3) c0nternp13.tes t.hat. s'L1b}ec,t to the prex;io'us
payment of the fee, the copies of entries in BQU}§.';»_in;_j
in the Index 1'eiat.ing thereto shail be persiontt
executing or claiming under the deeiu:n::_énts- te'jv-L_igh::eh '
such entries respectiveiy"---!:ejer;*-er .toi".:ite._'~«a.gerits
representatives". _ . _ _
8. The reading of Vs.i_1{§~se'cti§3fl. Of Section 57 of the
Act majtkes tit' entries in Book No.4» can
be given tn or claiming under the
doettrrient. "iihri-»t}V§e"insVtant. case, on the basis of the Genera}
:'Pevi}'er Attorney executed by the owner in favour of
the petitioner had purchased the site
be2ii'ing..':N(::'Vi}5. Hence, the petitio'ner comes under the
«_de»fi.nit.i§:5n claiming under the document to which, Such
respectively refers. The petitioner is not the third
4% W
ii)
party or sitzazigei' and on the basis of the Power of Atitorney
she has purchased the property from one Ganganna..__
9. The reasoning of the second "respondent Wth_ziit, the
document entered in Book No.4 cannot be gi_\/fe"r'1'-.i.s--.totally
erroneous. Subsection (3) of Section _--S'7v-provideps it
issuance of certified copy of the'».:doc:'uiI:1ent: Vtol"ti1'el:jp_ei*Asor1
claiming under the said doeu-xner1t;'v. Furt.'n:e19..§vreadirig *
Rule 144 of Ka1'nata_ka R€glSt'TailQIl E19655 also
provides for issuance loflpcef--tifi§etl in Book No.4 to
the agents'Aof:.repi;*esentatiVes}'Wurther, the Registration
Rule cannot 3 of Section 57' of the
Registifationw Act. V1908. there is controversy between the
3 V' .Act:i.g{nci'-sRu--}es, prevail over the Rules. The reading
of Section 57 of the Act makes it very
clear th~at._ntlie person claiming under the documents is
it '"--__l"*entit1ed,_.to obtain a copy of the document entered in Book
it '.No.A; The OI'Cl€}' relied upon by the second respondent
it w-passed by the State Information Commissioner is not
applicable to the fact.s of the present case. in the order
passecl by the State i:nfor'mation Commissioner, VtTr:s'third
party had made an application for issL1_a;n'ce.'.y'~o_tl'5
document entered in Book No.4.
C.i1'C1.1II1StE1I1CE3S, the Commissioner, pegssed an'Aor'l_e1'l:statiV13g
that the said i'nfo1'mat.ior1 cannot. be l't1.I'I1lSh'€:d Ifixtit, Jiri the V
instant case, the petitioner svlfte No. 1 15,
on the basis of the issued by
the owner in_.Vf;i\Qrot11' whom she
has purgh;5l'é3€i_j__ petitioner comes
underidthle 3 of Section 57 of the
Act Hence, she is entitled
to get/the copies of the General Power of Attorney.
Emime ..'21pp'roétchl made by the second respondent is
Registration Act. Hence, the same is liable
tobe set Accordingly, I pass the following:
1"}
ORDER
The Writ petition is allowed and endorsemet1::o»~:;'i af;ed 22»7~201O issued by the second respondent.--i§§mqii%3;3el§eti§'. The second respondent is Cii1"€_QJE€Ci to'ti<2e"' application of the pefitioraer for isstzanooee. of the General Power of Attoffiey in Aaceordé;ooej'w£.tki the- Registration Act, 1908. AV _ Parties to bear the__iaf'~~-owrji costs.