Karnataka High Court
Jagadishgouda And Another vs Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha ... on 12 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR2000KANT177, 2000(3)KARLJ152, AIR 2000 KARNATAKA 177, (2000) 3 KANT LJ 152
Author: V. Gopala Gowda
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda
ORDER
1. Lands bearing Sy. Nos. 60/2 and 61 situated in Chowdapur Village in Bagalkot District belonged to the family of respondents 3 and 4. Respondent 5, who is an unlicensed money-lender, lent Rs. 25,000-00, got executed two sale deeds in his name and in the name of his daughter (respondent 6) on 20-10-1982 and 4-3-1982 towards security of the loan. The documents were presented before the 2nd respondent-Sub-Registrar for registration. The Sub-Registrar issued notices to respondents 5 and 6 vide Annexures-A and B stating that the market value indicated in the sale deeds do not reflect the current market value and calling upon them to show cause as to why the deficit stamp duty should not be collected. Ultimately, those notices became the subject-matter in W.P. Nos. 5046 and 5047 of 1986 filed by respondents 5 and 6 seeking to quash them. By an order dated 11-11-1993 the said notices were quashed and matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The father of respondents 3 and 4 challenged the said order in W.A. Nos. 1515 and 1516 of 1994. The writ appeals were dismissed on 21-10-1997 reserving liberty to avail the remedies available under law. Thereafter, the sale deeds were registered by the Sub-Registrar in the year 1998.
2. In the meantime, it is pertinent to note that there was encumbrance on the properties in favour of the first respondent-society. The society brought the properties for sale by issuing sale proclamation to recover its dues. Respondents 5 and 6 filed suit in O.S. No. 9 of 1993 seeking a declaration that the first respondent-society and its officers have no right, title or interest to deal with the properties in question. The said suit was dismissed for default on 10-2-1994. Miscellaneous No. 10 of 1994 filed for restoration of the suit also came to be dismissed on 3-4-1998.
3. The present writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent on Annexure-E dated 28-4-1998 submitted by the petitioners not to register the sale deeds in favour of respondents 3 and 4. The endorsement made is that it is not possible to stop registration of the documents received for registration as per Rule 145 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 in view of the order of this Court dated 21-10-1998 and on account of vacation of the interim order by the Civil Court. A further prayer is made to declare the registration of sale deeds dated 4-3-1982 and 20-10-1982 registered by the 2nd respondent as illegal and to quash them.
4. The case put forth by the petitioners is that they have purchased the lands in question for valuable consideration on 7-6-1990 after discharging the encumbrances of the first respondent-society. The further case of the petitioners is that respondents 3 and 4 did not intend to transfer the title in favour of respondents 5 and 6.
5. Respondents 5 and 6 filed objections contending that respondents 3 and 4 executed the sale deeds in their favour in the year 1982. It is their case that though the registration was made in the year 1998, the delay in registering the documents was on account of the various proceedings and after overcoming those hurdles, the registration made belatedly dates back to the presentation of the deeds for registration. It is also brought on record that the lands in question have been acquired subsequently by the State Government and these respondents have also filed applications claiming compensation. They have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. This matter was heard at length. Learned Counsels for the parties have placed reliance on several decisions in support of their respective case. It is not necessary to advert to all those decisions and the contentions urged since the simple question for consideration is, whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for in these writ petitions and whether respondents 3 and 4 had marketable title to execute the sale deeds at Annexures-F and G in favour of respondents 5 and 6?
7. The contention of the petitioners is that the sale deeds executed in favour of respondents 5 and 6 were towards security for the loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- and respondents 3 and 4 did not intend to transfer the title of the lands in favour of respondents 5 and 6. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 these petitions averments are not at all either traversed or denied. In fact nothing is stated about these averments. Therefore, the case put forth by the petitioners have to be accepted.
8. The encumbrances created on the lands in question in favour of the first respondent-society is not in dispute. The petitioners purchased these lands after discharging the encumbrances of the society. In view of the encumbrances that existed on the lands in question, respondents 3 and 4 had no marketable title to execute the sale deeds in favour of respondents 5 and 6. The registration of the sale deeds in favour of respondents 5 and 6 was subsequent to the registration of sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. It is well-settled that unless a document which requires registration under the Karnataka Registration Act is duly registered, it will not be a valid deed. Title of the property passes to the party only after registration of the document. Since sale deeds had been registered in favour of the petitioners much earlier to the registration of sale deeds registered in favour of respondents 5 and 6, the 2nd respondent-Sub-Registrar should not have registered the sale deeds for the second time in respect of the same lands in favour of respondents 5 and 6. Had the 2nd respondent considered the objections filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-E, he would not have made the impugned endorsement thereon. There is total non-application of mind on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering the matter in a proper perspective. The registration of the sale deeds by the 2nd respondent for the second time in respect of the same lands by the same vendors was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Since respondents 3 and 4 had already passed on their title over the lands in favour of the petitioners before registration of the sale deeds in favour of respondents 5 and 6, the sale deeds executed by them could not have been registered for the second time as respondents 3 and 4 had no valid title over the lands in question. The purchase of lands by respondents 5 and 6 were not for bona fide consideration as the amount paid was by way of loan on the security of these lands.
9. Above conclusion is also supported by another factor. In the sale deeds the market value of the properties are mentioned as Rs. 25,000-00. But, a perusal of Annexure-A reveals that the market value of each property is Rs. 1,91,300-00. In page 2 of the said document reference is made to the reply dated 4-5-1983 to the effect that the 5th respondent admitted that if the value of the property is fixed and informed, he is prepared to pay the same. This very admission of 5th respondent proves that the properties were not purchased for valid consideration.
10. Learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 contended that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners in approaching the Civil Court. Availability of alternative remedy is no bar for this Court to exercise the writ jurisdiction in the light of the reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai. Reliance was also placed on a catena of other decisions of the Apex Court mentioned below.-
State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nook; AIR 1993 SC 724; Dhanyalakshmi Rice Mills v Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Another; Ram and Shyam Company v State of Haryana and Others; Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh and 1992(2) Scale 381.
and the judgments of this Court in G.K. Thirunarayana lyengar v State of Karnataka; MMe. Devikarani Roerich and Another v M/s. K.T. Plantations Private Limited, Bangalore and Another and Mohan Shet v State of Karnataka and Others. Having regard to the conclusions arrived at by this Court and also having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, instead of driving the parties to Civil Court to seek declaratory relief of the sale deeds illegal, null and void and not binding on the petitioners, this Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction and entertained these writ petitions for granting the reliefs sought for.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned endorsement is quashed. Consequently, the registration of sale deeds at Annexures-F and G dated 4-3-1982 and 20-10-1982 are also quashed. It follows that no title is passed on to respondents 5 and 6 over the lands in question.
12. Before parting with the case, it must be observed that respondents 5 and 6, who have lent money on the security of the lands in question, should not have got the sale deeds registered in their favour for lesser consideration from respondents 3 and 4.