Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It was submitted that during life time of Smt.Achamma, husband of respondent no.4 and father of respondents no.5 and 6 namely Kemparaju played fraud on her and obtained her signatures on some papers and created sale deed dated 22.02.1997. However, due to undervaluation, its registration was refused. When Kemparaju sought to interfere with their peaceful possession based on said sale deed, petitioners filed O.S.no.260/2015 seeking for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction.

9. It was urged that Sub-Registrar guidance value of agricultural property in Singapura village during 1996-97 was Rupees Four Lakhs per acre. Therefore, sale deed was grossly undervalued. But on ground of original deed remaining unclaimed for more than 2 years, it was destroyed as per Rule 220 of Registration Rules. But as undervaluation was endorsed on each page of said deed, without complying with procedure under Section 45A, impugned order would be highly irregular calling for interference.

- 11 -

same. It was also submitted insofar as endorsement regarding undervaluation that real reason for refusal of registration was not undervaluation but report of Tahasildar and in case of any deficit in stamp duty or undervaluation, action would be taken under Section 45A of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

23. In support of submission that refusal to register document on basis of report of Tahasildar would be contrary to law, reliance was placed on decision in case of Sulochanamma v/s H. Nanjundaswamy1, and Abid v/s Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottapalam2.

28. Respondents, however, seek to justify it on ground that after execution of sale deed on 22.02.1997, Vendor - Smt. Achamma had executed rectification deed dated 24.06.1997, which was duly registered and thereafter on 22.06.2013, even petitioners had executed deed of consent in

- 13 -

favour of Sri Kemparaju. They also contend that there were no proceedings held under Section 45-A of Karnataka Stamp Act for undervaluation and concern about demised property being gomal land was set at naught by Special Deputy Commissioner. It is contended that on 22.02.1997, all formalities of registration were completed, except issuance of original sale deed, which was delayed due to heavy rush of registration. While purchasers were under impression that when they were awaiting issuance of notices of undervaluation proceedings and only after securing information from respondents about status of their sale deed, they gave notice under Section 80 of CPC, in pursuance of which impugned order was passed upon due consideration of fact that reasons stated for refusal of registration were untenable and also on being satisfied that it was fit case to invoke Section 68(2) of The Registration Act.