Karnataka High Court
Smt Phool Devi Baid vs The Joint Sub Registrar on 3 June, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, L.Narayana Swamy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANASWAMY
WRIT APPEAL NO.3092 OF 2009 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
SMT.PHOOL DEVI BAID,
W/o SRI VINOD KUMAR BAID,
48 YEARS, No.11, 17TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560003. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMESH P. KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR,
NOW THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
No.32, 5TH MAIN,
GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560009.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
CHURCH STREET, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001.
3. SMT.R.SHARADAMMA,
W/o SRI RAMAIAH, 52 YEARS,
10TH CROSS, SWIMMING POOL EXTN.,
-2-
MALLESWARM,
BANGALORE - 560003. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.P.PRASANNA & ASSTS., ADV.
FOR C/R-3 AND R1
SRI M.KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
No.10799/2008 DATED 22.07.2009.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
K.L.MANJUNATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10799/2008 dated 22.07.2009 is called in question in this appeal.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are:
The third respondent was the owner of property bearing No.819, Old No.A-52, situated at 11th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore. She agreed to sell the aforesaid property in favour of the appellant for total sale consideration of Rs.2,83,000/-. The appellant -3- having paid the entire sale consideration presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar. The said document was pending because the parties did not produce clearance certificate from the Income-Tax Department. The document was presented for registration on 01.01.1989. Since the parties did not produce the clearance certificate within a reasonable time, the Sub-Registrar issued an endorsement stating that document cannot be kept pending. Accordingly, it was rejected on 01.01.1990. The appellant did not take any steps to challenge the endorsement or to produce the income tax clearance certificate and even she did not file a suit for enforcing the document.
4. According to her, she learnt about the rejection of the document in the year 2005 when she received a caveat petition filed by the third respondent and thereafter, she filed a writ petition in -4- W.P.No.21689/2005 to issue a certified copy of the endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter the writ petition was filed in 2008 requesting the Court to issue a direction to quash the endorsement dated 01.01.1990 and the order passed by the second respondent-appellate authority dated 09.07.2008, wherein the appeal filed the writ petitioner came to be rejected.
5. The learned Single Judge having heard the learned Counsel for the parties dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches, since the appellant had approached the Court twenty years after the transaction. The learned Single Judge however, based on the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent, directed the third respondent to refund Rs.2,83,000/- paid by the appellant to her along with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.01.1989 till the date of payment within a period of -5- eight weeks. Being not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not see any merits in this appeal for the following reasons:
Admittedly, when a sale deed is presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar or for all formalities that were required to be complied with by both the parties, it was well within the knowledge of the appellant that she is required to produce the Income- Tax clearance as required under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act. She has not made any efforts for over a period of fifteen years to produce the income-tax clearance. Even she has not approached the Sub- Registrar requesting to extend the time for production of the NOC. It is difficult for any Court to accept that a person can sleep over the matter for twenty years when -6- she has purchased the property by paying full sale consideration.
7. In addition to that, if respondent No.3 has failed to produce the NOC obtained by her from the Income Tax Department, it was for the appellant to file a suit against her to enforce the civil rights in terms of the agreement of sale. Without doing so, the appellant has approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. Therefore, we do not see any merits in this appeal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-