Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmal Singh And Others vs Joint Sub Registrar on 19 January, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
RSA No.4969 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4969 of 2010
Date of Decision: January 19, 2012
Jagmal Singh and others .......Appellants
Versus
Joint Sub Registrar, Kalayat and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
2. A suit under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short '1908 Act') for the passing of a decree for mandatory injunction vide which defendant No.1 was to be directed to register a document i.e. sale-deed dated 3.1.2006 was filed by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the document of sale was executed by defendants No.2 to 65 in favour of the plaintiffs on 3.1.2006 in respect of land measuring 165 K-8 M of village Bata, Tehsil and District Kaithal for a consideration of `40 lacs.
3. The sale-deed was presented on the same day before defendant No.1 for registration and attestation but defendant No.1, vide order dated 3,1,2006, refused to register the same. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an appeal under Section 72 of the 1908 Act before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kaithal and vide order dated 23.1.2006, the appeal stands rejected. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 had refused to register the sale- RSA No.4969 of 2010 2 deed on the basis of a letter from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kaithal dated 11.11.2005 wherein it had been stated that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal had granted status quo order regarding possession vide order dated 31.12.2001 and even this Court vide order dated 7.2.2002 had passed the order of status quo regarding possession pertaining to the disputed land. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 23.12.2005 had been served on defendant No.1 to the effect that a Co-operative Society would need a prior permission for sale of land under Section 89 of the Haryana Co- operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short '1984 Act'). A reference was also made to an order dated 12.1.2006 passed by this Court in RSA No.1457 of 2001 vide which alienation of the disputed land had been stayed. It was pleaded in the suit that the reasons assigned by defendant No.1 in the order dated 3.1.2006 were not valid and defendant No.1 had, as such, shown dereliction of duty and violated the mandatory provisions of the law under the 1908 Act while refusing to register the sale-deed, dated 3.1.2006.
4. Upon notice, the defendant-respondents appeared and filed the written statement. Defendant Nos.2 to 65 admitted the case of the plaintiffs in terms of filing one common written statement. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and a detailed written statement was filed taking a plea that the appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 72 of the 1908 Act had been dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2006 and such order had become final. It was pleaded that the orders dated 3.1.2006 passed by defendant No.1 and dated 23.1.2006 passed by the Registrar are in accordance with law. It was also pleaded that pertaining to the disputed land, litigation was pending and interim orders of the competent Courts had also been passed. Still further, the sale-deed could not have been registered and attested without obtaining RSA No.4969 of 2010 3 the NOC under the provisions of the 1984 Act.
5. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from the court?OPD
6. Relief.
6. Upon a thorough analysis of the evidence led on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff- appellants filed a civil appeal and vide impugned judgment dated 5.6.2010 passed by the District Judge, Kaithal, the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2008 passed by the trial Court has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.
7. Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that respondent-defendant No.1 was not competent to refuse the registration and attestation of the sale-deed vide order dated 3.1.2006. It was contended that in terms of Section 34 of the 1908 Act, the enquiry at the hands of defendant-respondent No.1 was limited to ascertaining that the proper parties were present at the time of RSA No.4969 of 2010 4 registration of the sale-deed. The requirement was only to ensure that the document presented for registration was, in fact, executed. Such enquiry could not extend so as to look into the title of the vendors as mentioned in the sale-deed. It was also argued that on the date of presentation of the sale document dated 3.1.2006, there was no interim order passed by the High Court as regards alienation. Mr.Gupta would further contend that the provisions of Section 89 of 1984 Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. The sale-deed dated 3.1.2006 is Exhibit P1. It was presented for registration on 3.1.2006 itself. The registration of the same was declined by the Sub Registrar citing three-fold reasons: (i) there was an order of status quo regarding possession dated 3.12.2001 passed by the Civil Court
ii) there was an order dated 7.2.2002 with respect to status quo regarding possession passed by the High Court and iii) a prior permission under Section 89 of the 1984 Act was a pre-requisite.
9. Clearly, an order to maintain status quo regarding possession had been passed by the competent Courts below. It would, thus, be construed as a legal impediment insofar as registration of the sale-deed dated 3.1.2006 is concerned, as it would amount to interfere in the process of law as far as possession was concerned. In the sale-deed, Exhibit P1, there was a clear recital that the possession of the land forming the subject matter of the sale-deed has been delivered to the plaintiff- appellants/vendees. Registration of the sale-deed at the hands of defendant- respondent No.1 on 3.1.2006 would have clearly nullified the interim orders regarding status quo.
10. Even though, the argument raised by learned counsel for the RSA No.4969 of 2010 5 appellants is to be accepted that the scope of enquiry by a Sub Registrar under Sections 34 and 35 of the 1908 Act is limited only as regards obtaining the proof of execution of the document, still the fact cannot be lost sight of that the Sub Registrar, while holding a public office, would not merely proceed to register a document with closed eyes and would ignore the interim orders passed by the Courts below in respect of land which forms subject matter of the sale-deed presented before him and such interim orders having specifically brought to his notice.
11. It has also been noticed by the first Appellate Court that vide order dated 20.7.2007, Exhibit D7, mutation No.4968 dated 22.9.1995 sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-appellants had been set aside. An appeal preferred against the order, Exhibit D7, before the Commissioner, Ambala Division also stands dismissed, vide order dated 20.2.2008, Exhibit D8. Upon cancellation of the mutation in favour of the plaintiff-appellants, the clear implication that would arise is that the Co-operative Society would have a stake on the land in dispute in regard to ownership. Under such circumstances, a prior approval of the Registrar would be pre-requisite before any such sale of land. That apart, the order dated 3.1.2006 passed by defendant-respondent No.1 and order dated 23.1.2006 passed in appeal by the Registrar would also hold good inasmuch as no declaration has been sought from the Civil Court to declare such orders being null and void.
12. In the light of discussion held above, there is no scope of interference with the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below. It would always be open for the vendors to present the sale-deed afresh for registration and attestation after adjudication of the rights in the litigations pending in the Courts of law pertaining to suit land. RSA No.4969 of 2010 6
13. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the present second appeal.
14. The present appeal is wholly devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
15. Appeal dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
JANUARY 19, 2012 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No