Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


RAMESH CHAND & Ors v. THE REGISTRAR-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JI - CWP-14360-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 72 (26 July 2005)

CWP No.14360 of 2005

Ramesh Chand & others Vs The Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner Jind & another

Present: Mr.R.S.Mitltal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr.Ashok Jindal, Addl.a.G.Haryana for respondent Nos.1 &2.

Mr.S.C.Kapoor, Senior Advocate, with

Mr.Surender Dhull, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 & 4.


Petitioners, who claim to be in exclusive possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos.1372 and 1373/2 out of joint Khewat No.251 in the revenue estate of Village Narwana, District Jind, sold 42 kanals out of the said land for Rs 31,50,000/- They executed the sale deed on 4-01-2005 on stamp papers worth Rs 4,20,000/- They presented the same for registration before the Sub Registrar, Narwana, responent No.2, who declined to register the same by means of an order dated 17-05-2005 which is reproduced below:-

"Reasons for not registering the document/order of the Sub Registrar:

1. In the document presented, the land/property has been mentioned in detail, but at page 3 of the document, it is CWP No.14360 of 2005

stated that the vendors are selling only 840/1230 shares out of an area of land measuring 61 kanals 10 marlas measuring only 42 kanals. Although, in the revenue record, in this khewat, the share of the vendors is 5 kanals 2 marlas only. Hence, the vendors are selling the land in excess of their share which is not legal.

2. In addition to the above, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its judgment in Civil Revision No. 5689 of 2004 has held in the relevant paragraph as under:- "However, their act of alienation and raising construction on the suit land would be subject to the decision of the Court in the main case filed by the plaintiff."

In accordance with this, the sale of the land in dispute is contrary to the decision of the High Court until the decision of the main suit.

Hence on account of both these reasons, I return the proposed sale deed to Sh.Sanjay Kumar son of Ravi Sarup son of Sh.Amolak Ram resident of Narwana." Aggrieved by the same, petitiones filed an appeal before the CWP No.14360 of 2005

Registrar-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Jind under the Indian Registration Act, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30-8-2005 (Annexure P-5). It is against these orders of the Sub Registrar and the Registrar that the present writ petition has been filed.

From a perusal of the impugned orders it is clear that two reasons have been given for declining the registration of sale deed - (i) that the vendors are selling land in excess of their share and (ii) that the sale is contrary to the decision of the High Court in Civil Revision No. 5689 of

2004. Neither of the two reasons justify the action of the respondents. In the first reason, the ownership of the vendors in the land being sold has been questioned. The Sub Registrar is not competent to go into this question and refuse to register the sale deed on the ground that the vendors have no title on the property sought to be sold. This very issue had come up for consideration in CWP No. 10602 of 1992 and it was held that the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to refuse to register the sale deed on the ground that the title of the vendor has not been proved to his satisfaction. The Court relied on an earlier decision by a Division Bench in Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and another Vs. Krishan Gopal, Kataria and others ( 1997-2)116 P.L.R. 175. It would be useful to reproduce para 7 CWP No.14360 of 2005

of this judgment, which reads as under:- "7. The Registration Act is a complete Code. It enumerates specific reasons for which the Registrar or the Sub Registrar may refuse to register a document. Section 69 of the Act authorises Inspector- General to exercise a general superintendence over all registrars functioning in the State and to make rules consistent with the Act providing for the matter enumerated therein. The State Government has not been invested with any powers of superintendence or control over the Sub Registrar, Registrars or Inspector-General of registration. Hence it is obvious that the State Government has no power to issue any instructions to these officers not to register lease deed/sale deed etc. The State Government cannot create contours in any statute. It can only iron out certain minor creases therein. The powers given to the Sub Registrar/Registrars cannot be curtailed by executive instructions issued by the State Government. The Sub Registrar by declining to register lease deed/sale deed presented by the petitioner-respondents had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. The Registrar also fell into that error in dismissing their appeals. Sections 21,23,28,32 and 35 provide various grounds on which the Sub Registrar can refuse to register a document, but the Act no where provides that the Sub Registrar/Registrar can refuse to register lease deed/sale deed pertaining to the properties of religious/charitable institutions.

CWP No.14360 of 2005

The State Government through its executive instructions cannot put a clog on registration of such lease deed/sale deed. The Legislature has not thought it proper to make such a provision in the Act. The Sub Registrars/Registrars cannot travel beyond the powers to be exercised by them under the provisions of the Act.

If the Mohants/Pujaris/Managers of such religious and charitable institutions/Deras execute sale deed, mortgage deed or lease deed etc. affecting the property of such Deras/Institutions, such transactions can be challenged by taking out legal proceedings in appropriate forum."

In view of the observations of the Division Bench in Krishan Gopal Kataria's case (supra) it is clear that the Sub Regisatrar could not have declined to register the sale deed on ground (ii) also. Even otherwise, the order of this Court which has been reproduced by the Sub Registrar does not restrain the petitioners from alienating the suit land. It has been merely observed that such an alienation would be subject to the decision of the Court in the main case filed by the plaintiff. Thus the second objection is clearly based on a misreading of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.5689 of 2004.

It goes without saying that mere registration of a sale deed CWP No.14360 of 2005

cannot prejudice the right of any other person, if any, in the property nor does it confer any title on the vendor, if he does not have any.

In view of the above, we are satisfied that the orders of the Sub Registrar dated 17-05-2005 and the Registrar dated 30-8-2005 (Annexure P- 4) cannot be sustained. The same are, accordingly, quashed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Sub Registrar on 3-10-2005 or on any working day thereafter for registration of the sale deed, who shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The writ petition accordingly stands allowed.

( N.K.SUD )


Sept.26,2005 (VIRENDER SINGH)

'dls' JUDGE

CWP No.14360 of 2005


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.