Delhi District Court
) Smt. Sushila vs ) Sub-Registrar Vi-A on 5 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENU KAUSHIK, SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE CUM-RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH-
WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
C.S No: 58787/16
CNR No: DLNW030001582013
1.) Smt. Sushila W/o Sh. Mukesh Soni R/o G-245-46, Shakur Pur, Delhi-110034
2.) Sh. Mukesh Soni S/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o G-245-46, Shakur Pur, Delhi-110034.
......Plaintiffs Versus
1.) Sub-Registrar VI-A Pitampura, Delhi.
2.) Registrar (North West)
Kanjhawala, Delhi-81
....... Defendants
Date of Institution : 06.06.2013
Date of concluding arguments : 05.02.2022
Date of pronouncing judgment : 05.02.2022
FINAL JUDGMENT
1. Present case is filed by the plaintiff for a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the orders dated 11.01.2013 passed by the defendants no.2 in which the order dated 21.07.2012 passed by the defendant no.1 merged, as illegal and null and void and further a decree of Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 1/19 C.S No. 58787/16 mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 and 2 to direct them to register the agreement to sell and GPA dated 24.06.2011, as duly presented by the plaintiffs before the defendant no.1 vide slip No.14727 dated 24.06.2011.
As per the case of plaintiff, the plaintiffs purchased the flat bearing No. A-3/20 in the Jiwan Jyoti CGHS Ltd from one Smt. Achla Pahwa who was lawful attorney of Sh. B.S. Chauhan vide registered GPA dated 30.09.2010 who was the lawful owner of the said flat. Smt. Achla Pahwa entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 24.06.2011 with the plaintiffs for the sale of the said flat and accordingly executed Agreement to Sale, GPA, Will and other incidental documents in favour of the plaintiff after receiving entire sale consideration on 24.06.2011. The actual physical possession of the said flat was also handed over by Smt. Achla Pahwa to the plaintiff on 24.06.2011 and since then the plaintiffs have been in actual physical possession of the said flat.
It is further stated that Smt. Achla Pahwa before executing the aforesaid documents in respect of the said flat, applied for and got a NOC from the said society certifying that the seller/member has cleared all her dues including that of loan and nothing was outstanding against her in respect of the said flat. The plaintiffs, after paying the requisite stamp duty and registration charges to the government, duly presented the said documents before the defendant no.1 on 24.06.2011, which were duly accepted by the defendant no.1 vide slip No. 14727. Despite repeated requests and visits by the plaintiffs, the office of Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 2/19 C.S No. 58787/16 the defendant no.1 did not release the registered documents to the plaintiffs on one or other pretext. After almost 8-9 months of the presentation of the aforesaid documents to the defendant no.1, plaintiffs were shocked to receive a memorandum from the defendant no.1 in July, 2012 wherein the defendant no.1 for the first time alleged that aforesaid Agreement to Sale and GPA presented by the plaintiff before the defendant no.1 were lying pending for want of NOC from Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DCHFC) and asked the plaintiff to submit the alleged NOC within 15 days failing which the aforesaid documents shall be registered in Book No.II, which is meant for refused documents. The plaintiff thereafter filed her reply to the aforesaid memorandum informing the defendant no.1 that Smt. Achla Pahwa from whom the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid flat had taken a loan from Jiwan Jyoti CGHS Ltd and not from DCHFC and the loan taken from society was repaid by the said member to the said society as is evident from the NOC issued by the society. The DCHFC failed to show any legal statement of account showing any due against the member/ plaintiff.
It is further stated that the defendant no.1 without even considering the reply of the plaintiff and without seeking any reply or relevant records from the DCHFC or the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi in undue haste passed the order dated 21.07.2012 for registering the aforesaid documents in Book II. No opportunity of personal hearing was afforded by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff before passing the aforesaid order.
Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 3/19 C.S No. 58787/16It is further stated that the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2012, challenged the illegality and proprietary of the said order by way of filing an appeal u/s 72 of Registration Act 1908 before the defendant No.2. The defendant no.2 took cognizance of the appeal filed by the plaintiff and issued notice to the defendant no.1 who neither appeared nor filed any reply. The defendant no.2 also without considering and dealing with the submissions made by the plaintiff in her appeal, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff with a non-speaking and abrupt order dated 11.01.2013. The defendant no.2 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff by misinterpreting the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed on 11.10.2011 in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. SLP(C) No.13917/2009, holding that in view of aforesaid judgment, the aforesaid documents could not be registered.
It is further stated that it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 & 2 after the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued a circular bearing No. F1.(92)Regn.Br./Div.Com./2012/298 dated 27.04.2012 completely restraining/banning registration of agreement to sell, GPA etc. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 30.04.2013 quashed the aforesaid circular issued by the defendants no.1 and 2 being illegal and against the correct interpretation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The plaintiffs have, thus, filed the present suit challenging the legality of the order dated 11.01.2013 in which the earlier order dated 21.07.2012 passed by the defendant no.1 Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 4/19 C.S No. 58787/16 got merged. Hence, the present suit.
2. Summons were issued to the defendants in the present suit to which they put their appearance and filed the written statement wherein preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that no notice under section 80 CPC has been served by the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is undervalued and is also not maintainable in view of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act. No cause of action ever accrued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
It is further stated that plaintiff failed to submit the NOC from DCHFC because the flat of the plaintiff is situated in the society which comes under Mortgaged Defaulter Societies. As per Letter No.24(115)/2009-2-1-/DCHFC/1637 dated 28.07.2009 issued by Ms. Anita Agarwal, Senior Manager, Delhi Co- operative Housing Finance Corp. Ltd., a prior permission/NOC was required to be submitted in the Sub Registrar office in case transaction of sale, purchase, mutation or any other transaction of flat situated in the societies declared as Mortgaged Defaulter Societies. It is stated that no NOC from Jiwan Jyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd was required. A Memorandum vide No. 1435 dated 30.06.2012 was sent to the plaintiff for submitting the NOC from competent authority i.e. DCHFC within 15 days from the date of issue of said memo but the plaintiff failed to submit the required NOC and accordingly document was registered in Book-II. As per Letter No.24(115) / 2009-2-1-/DCHFC/1637 dated 28.07.2009 issued by Ms. Anita Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 5/19 C.S No. 58787/16 Agarwal, Senior Manager, Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corp. Ltd., Jiwan Jyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd has taken the loan against the mortgaged property and defaulter societies are in the arrears of loan and have defaulted in payment. Accordingly, DCHFC informed the Sub-Registrar VI office and others and requested that no action may be permitted in respect of any transaction concerning sale, purchase, mutation or any other transaction, or approval without prior permission of the DCHFC.
It is further stated that the order dated 21.07.2012 is self speaking and with an opportunity of 15 days for submitting NOC vide memorandum dated 30.06.2013, but the plaintiff has failed to submit the same within stipulated period. It is stated that the revised circulars issued by the Revenue Head Quarters in compliance of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 30.04.2013 in the matter of Pace Developers and Promoters Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi in WPC 4585/2012, also not allowed the registration. It is further stated that the orders dated 21.07.2012 and 11.01.2013 are self speaking and legal as per letter dated 20.07.2009 issued by the DCHFC and as per circular issued by the Revenue Head Quarters on 27.04.2012.
3. Plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants wherein they denied the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 6/19 C.S No. 58787/164. On the basis of pleadings on record, following issues were framed vide order dated 24.03.2014:
1.) Whether the suit is bad for non-service of notice u/s 80 CPC? OPD
2.) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
3.) Whether the suit is not maintainable in terms of provision of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act? OPD
4.) Whether the suit is devoid of any cause of action, as plaintiff has failed to submit NOC from Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Cooperation Ltd? OPD
5.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP
6.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction ? OPP
7.) Relief.
5. Plaintiffs, to prove their case, have examined Sh. Mukesh Soni/plaintiff no.2 as PW-1. He tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A. In his affidavit, the PW-1 reiterated the contents of the plaint. He also relied upon various documents i.e. Copy of Memorandum Mark A, duplicate NOC dated 22.01.2016 Ex. PW1/2, copy of order dated 21.07.2012 Mark C, copy of appeal filed before Deputy Commissioner North West Mark D, certified copy of order dated 11.01.2013 Ex. PW1/5.
PW-1 was duly cross examined on behalf of the defendants. During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he has Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 7/19 C.S No. 58787/16 purchased the flat in question for earlier owner Smt. Achala Pahwa who was not in his relation. He has no knowledge that property in question was mortgaged with DCHFC. He did not ask for NOC from DCHFC. He had taken the NOC from society. He has received the order dated 21.07.2012 refusing to register the documents from the office of Sub-Registrar. He came to know that the society has been mortgaged with DCHFC after purchasing the suit property. He does not know why the defendants refused to register the suit property.
6. Plaintiff also examined Sh. L.R. Madan as PW-2 who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW2/A in his evidence and relied upon the documents i.e. copy of certified copy of order dated 28.05.2008 Ex. PW2/1, copy of certified copy of order dated 17.12.2008 Ex. PW2/2.
PW-2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendants wherein he deposed that he is the President of the Society Jeevan Jyoti Cooperative Society Ltd.(JJCSL). He knows that the society(JJCSL) is mortgaged with Delhi Housing Cooperative Financing Society(DHCFS). PW-2 admitted that Sub Registrar has rejected the application of the plaintiff on the ground that she should obtain the NOC from DHCFS first and that plaintiff has not purchased the property from her blood relation. He does not know whether the sale by way of GPA can be done only between the blood relations.
No other witness was examined by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' evidence was closed.
Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 8/19 C.S No. 58787/167. Defendants examined Sh. Sandeep Dabas, Sub-Registrar, VI-A, Pitam Pura, Delhi. He tendered his affidavit Ex. DW1/A in evidence and relied upon the document i.e. copy of the letter dated 28.07.2009 Mark A and the documents already Ex. PW1/5.
DW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs wherein he deposed that he does not remember whether he has seen the original document pertaining to the present case. He cannot say whether his office has received any court order whereby the court restrains this office to register the document pertaining to the property in question. He admitted that there is no mentioning of any court order in above said refusal order dated 21.07.2012. In reply to the question that in case any complaint is received against registration of any particular property in their office what they do, it is replied by DW-1 that they generally asked the complainant to produce any stay order from court. In case the complainant fails to produce any stay order, they register the document pertaining to the said property, if otherwise complete. He cannot say whether in the present case this office asked for stay order from any competent court. He admitted that the letter dated 28.07.2009 written by Smt. Anita Aggarwal is not a court order. He cannot say whether dues shown against Jeewan Jyoti Society is verified and approved by any court of law. He has no idea how DCHFC function and grant loans. He does not know about any litigation between DCHFC and Jeewan Jyoti Society. DW-1 admitted that their office issued notice dated 30.06.2012 to the plaintiff for submission of NOC from DCHFC and thereafter refusal order dated 21.07.2012 was Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 9/19 C.S No. 58787/16 passed refusing to register the document on the ground non submission of NOC from DCHFC within stipulated period. This was the only ground on the basis of which aforesaid notice was issued and above said refusal order was passed. He further admitted that there is no ground of out of blood relations in the above said refusal order. He further admitted that agreement to sell in respect of lease hold properties is being register in Delhi. DW-1 admitted the execution of original agreement to sell dated 21.08.2016 and a general power of attorney dated 10.07.2010 in pursuance of court order, copies of which are Ex. DW1/X1 and DW1/X2. He cannot say whether the NOC issued by society in favour of plaintiff should have accepted or not by their office.
No other witness was examined by the defendants and defendants' evidence was closed.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully gone through the material on record. My issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE No-1:
Whether the suit is bad for non service of notice u/s 80 CPC? OPD Onus of this issue is upon the defendant. As per the defendant, suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as no notice under Sec. 80 CPC which is mandatory for filing any suit against any Government body has been served by the plaintiffs.
Contrary to this, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 10/19 C.S No. 58787/16 that notice under Sec. 80 CPC was not required to be served as present suit is in nature of appeal filed under Sec. 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 against the order of refusal of Registrar for registering any document for which no notice is required to be given. As per sec. 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 such suit should be filed within thirty days. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs further contended that as present suit was to be filed within thirty days as per Sec. 77 of the Act, serving notice of two months is not feasible. It is further contended that the purpose of such notice is to make aware the concerned officer/ department about the matter/grievances whereas in the present case the defendants themselves have passed the impugned order against which present suit is filed and thus defendants were fully aware of the matter and cannot review their own orders. It is also stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that as a matter of abundant caution, application under sec. 80(2) CPC has been filed by him seeking leave of this court to file the suit in view of urgency of the matter.
Court is in agreement with the contentions made on behalf of the plaintiffs. Present suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Sec. 77 of the Registration Act being aggrieved of the order of the defendants. As per Sec. 77 of the Act, such suit is to be filed within 30 days of the impugned order and hence, notice of two months is not found to be feasible. Further, purpose of such notice is only to make the concerned officer/ department aware of the grievance/ matter and in the present case defendants were already aware of the matter. Here reliance is placed upon Veranna Veerabhadrappa v. The District Registrar And Anr., Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 11/19 C.S No. 58787/16 AIR 2005 Kant 27, wherein it has been held that "the question of issuing notice does not arise since the appellant in questioning the veracity of the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal and the suit is filed under sec. 77 of the Registration Act 1908.
The said proceeding is in the nature of appeal from the order of refusal to register under sec. 70 of Registration Act. Hence question of issuing notice under sec. 80 CPC does not arise."
In view of above discussion, it is concluded that serving of notice under sec. 80 CPC was not mandatory for the present case and hence, present suit is not bad for non-service of notice under sec. 80 CPC. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant.
ISSUE No.2 Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD Onus of this issue is upon the defendants. As per the defendants present suit is under-valued. No further contention is made on behalf of the defendants in this regard. Present suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief in the form of declaration and injunctions. Plaintiffs have sought declaration with respect to the orders dated 11.01.2013 passed by the defendants no.2 in which the order dated 21.07.2012 passed by the defendant no.1 merged, as illegal and null and void. No further consequential relief with respect to those orders is sought by the plaintiff. Here reliance is placed upon Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., on 29 March, 2010 Supreme Court, wherein it was held Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 12/19 C.S No. 58787/16 that in a suit for declaratory relief with no consequential relief, a fixed court fee is required to be paid. However, if consequential relief is sought with the relief of declaration, ad-valorem court fee is required to be paid.
In Shailander Bhardwaj and others v. Chandra Pal and another also it was held that Article 17(iii) of the Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is applicable in cases where plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without any consequential relief.
Considering the fact that no consequential relief to declaring the order of the defendants is sought here by the plaintiffs, plaintiffs are not supposed to pay the ad valorem court fees. Plaintiffs have paid separate court fees for both the reliefs sought by them and the same is found sufficient by the court. No specific evidence is adduced by the defendants in this regard. Hence, present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE No.3 Whether the suit is not maintainable in terms of provision of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act? OPD Onus of this is lies upon the defendants. No evidence is adduced by the defendants in this regard to discharge their onus with respect to this issue. Defendants have been failed to discharge onus of this issue. In the opinion of this court present suit is not barred under the provisions of Sec. 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Thus, this issue is decided against the Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 13/19 C.S No. 58787/16 defendants.
ISSUE NO.4 Whether the suit is devoid of any cause of action, as plaintiff has failed to submit NOC from Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Cooperation Ltd? OPD Onus of this issue lies upon the defendants. As per the plaintiffs they purchased the suit property from Achla Pahwa who was lawful attorney of Sh. B.S. Chauhan, the lawful owner of the said flat. It is further stated that Achla Pahwa entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 24.06.2011 with the plaintiffs and before executing the aforesaid documents in respect of the said flat, she applied for and got a NOC from the said society certifying that the seller/member has cleared all her dues including that of loan and nothing was outstanding against her in respect of the said flat. It is further contention of the plaintiffs that Achla Pahwa from whom the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid flat had taken a loan from Jiwan Jyoti CGHS Ltd. and not from DCHFC and the loan taken from society was repaid by the said member to the said society as is evident from the NOC issued by the society and no evidence has come on record that there is any due of DCHFC against the member/ plaintiffs.
As per the plaintiffs, in the reply they had informed the defendant no.2 that Achla Pahwa from whom the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid flat had taken a loan from Jiwan Jyoti CGHS Ltd and not from DCHFC and the loan taken from society was repaid by the said member to the said society as is evident Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 14/19 C.S No. 58787/16 from the NOC issued by the society.
In view of the fact that since the loan was taken by the previous owner from Jiwan Jyoti CGHS Ltd. and not from DCHFC, it cannot be expected that NOC from DCHFC could be procured either by the previous owner or by the plaintiffs. Hence, it cannot be said that plaintiffs do not have any cause of action against the order passed by defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.5 & 6Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction ? OPP Issue No.5 and 6 are being taken up together as these issues can be decided together in the facts and circumstances of present case. Onus to prove both these issues lies upon the plaintiffs.
According to the plaintiffs, their various documents like GPA, Will etc. incidental to sale of one flat in Jiwan Jyoti CGHS Ltd. were refused to be registered by the defendant no. 1 for want of NOC from DCHFC and plaintiffs were asked to submit the NOC within 15 days. As the plaintiffs could not submit the same, their documents were registered in Book No. II which is meant for refused documents. Plaintiffs, when challenged the Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 15/19 C.S No. 58787/16 said order of defendant no.1 vide appeal Mark 'D', the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.01.2013 Ex. PW-1/5 saying that the same is hit by Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana 2012, SCC 656.
From the evidence adduced by defendants, nothing has come on record to show that the seller of plaintiffs ever applied to DCHFC or DCHFC sanctioned any loan to her. It is admitted fact that it is the society which took loan from DCHFC and DCHFC does not maintain individual loan accounts of members but has only one account of the society.
As per PW-2, it is the society which certifies whether its portion of the loan has been repaid by individual member. It is contended on behalf of plaintiffs that it is the society which is maintaining individual loan accounts of its members who had availed loan and therefore it is not possible for the plaintiffs to obtain NOC from DCHFC. As per PW-2, the President of the Society, the NOC dated 19.06.2011 was issued certifying that all the dues including loan amount and interest thereon of flat in question have been paid and nothing was outstanding against the flat. In view of testimony of PW-2, it can be concluded that noting was due towards DCHFC regarding the flat in question and that plaintiffs/ their seller could not obtain NOC from DCHFC regarding the flat in question.
PW-1 in his testimony has specifically mentioned that since the seller, from whom they had purchased the said flat, had not taken loan from DCHFC, therefore they cannot produce NOC Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 16/19 C.S No. 58787/16 from DCHFC. However, this aspect was not considered by defendant no.1 and documents of plaintiffs pertaining to flat in question were refused to be registered in terms of Sec. 71 of Registration Act.
Considering the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, it is concluded that as the plaintiffs or their seller had not taken loan from DCHFC, they were not supposed to collect NOC from DCHFC regarding clearance of loan of the society. It is admitted fact that plaintiffs have taken NOC from the society regarding clearance of dues by the seller. In such a situation, refusal for registration of documents was not within the ambit of Sec. 71 of the Registration Act.
Further, defendant no.2 while deciding the appeal vide order dated 11.01.2013 Ex. PW1/5 against the impugned order dated 21.07.2012 of defendant no.1 refused to register the documents referring Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Suraj lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment it was also observed that -
"We make it clear that our observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions. For example, a person may give a power of attorney to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance. A person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for developing the land either by forming plots or by constructing apartment buildings and in that behalf execute an agreement of sale and grant a Power of Attorney empowering the developer to execute agreements of sale or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers. In several States, the execution of such development agreements and Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 17/19 C.S No. 58787/16 powers of attorney are already regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty. Our observations regarding `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' are not intended to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions.
It is clear from reading the above portion of the said judgment that Hon'ble Apex Court has not held that in any situation conveyance/ sale of immovable property cannot be registered by taking course of GPA. It is also held in the same judgment that in genuine transaction documents of sale even by GPA can be registered by Sub Registrar. This aspect was also considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pace Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. V. Govt of NCT, WP©4585/12 decided on 30.04.2013 and it was held that -
"Quite clearly, the Supreme Court has not said that in no case a conveyance can be registered by taking recourse to a GPA. As long as the transaction is genuine, the same will have to be registered by the Sub- Registrar."
In view of above discussed authorities, it is concluded that documents of the plaintiffs were wrongly denied to be registered. In view of above discussion, both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
Relief In view of my issue wise findings, suit of the plaintiff stands disposed of as decreed.
Plaintiffs are held entitled for decree of declaration and thus order dated 11.01.2013 of defendant no.2 where by order of Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 18/19 C.S No. 58787/16 defendant no.1 was upheld, is hereby set aside by declaration.
Plaintiffs are also held entitled for decree of mandatory injunction and defendant no.1 is directed to register the documents of sale pertaining to the impugned property/ flat as presented earlier subject to compliance of rules and furnishing of proper stamp fees etc.
9. Plaintiff is also held entitled for costs of the suit.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced through audio/video conference by MEENU KAUSHIK MEENU Date:
KAUSHIK On 05.02.2022 2022.02.05 16:14:04 +0530 (Meenu Kaushik) Senior Civil Judge/ Rent Controller North West District Rohini Courts, Delhi 05.02.2022 Sushila & Anr. Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A & Anr. Page 19/19 C.S No. 58787/16