Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Diptimayee Pattnaik .......…… Petitioner -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others ……….. Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. B.C.Panda, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, S.C. P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 01.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.07.2025 WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 J UDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for directing the Sub- Registrar Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to entertain the deed for sale under Annexure-3 for registration, as, the Sub-Registrar Athagarh (O.P. No.3) refused to entertain the said Annexure-3 on the ground that, in the E.C. in respect of the properties covered under that Annexure-3, there is reflection about an agreement dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-2) for sale by the Petitioner in favour of one Sankarsan Mohanty and unless the Annexure-2 is cancelled, he (Sub-Registrar Athagarh, O.P. No.3) cannot entertain the Annexure-3 for registration. 2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties. 3. According to the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is :- WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 whether the refusal of the Sub-Registrar Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to entertain the deed for sale under Annexure-3 executed by the Petitioner and her co-owners in favour of Samarendra Pattnaik on the ground of reflection in the E.C. about the execution of an agreement for sell dated 03.03.2023 (Annexxure-2) in respect of the properties covered under Annexure-3 by the Petitioner in favour of the Sankarsan Mohanty is sustainable under law? 4. The legal effect of an agreement to sell like Annexure-2 has been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Rambhau Namdeo Gajre Vrs. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (dead) through LRs. reported in (2004) 8 S.C.C. 614 in Para No.13 that, the agreement to sell does not create an interest of the proposed vendee in the suit property. (ii) In a case between Mahaaj Singh and others Vrs. Karan Singh (dead) through LRs and others reported in 2024 (4) Civ.C.C. (S.C.) 214 in Para No.17 that, In view of Section 54 of the TP Act, an agreement for sale does not transfer the property subject matter of the agreement to the purchaser. It does not create any interest in the property subject matter of the agreement. (iii) In a case between Allada Satyanarayana and others Vrs. Kosaraju Sobhanamjali and others reported in 2024 (3) C.C.C. 322 (Andhra Pradesh) in Para No.37 that, the agreement to sell does not create any interest of the proposed vendee in the suit schedule property involved in that agreement. In a case between Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (iv) Vrs. State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 2012 (S.C.) 206 in Para No.11 that, transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. 5. When, as per the ratio of the above decisions, it is clarified propositions of law that, an agreement to sell does not create an interest in favour of the proposed buyer, for which, as per law, the agreement to sell vide Annexure-2 cannot be a bar under law for registration of the deed for sale executed by the owners of the properties in respect of the properties involved in the agreement like Annexure-2 in favour of a person other than the proposed buyer. 6. When, there will be an agreement to sell like Annexure-2 executed by the vendor in favour of a person other than the proposed vendee in the deed for sale and when such agreement to sell is reflected in the E.C. in respect of the properties to be sold, then at this juncture, a question arises, whether any Sub- Registrar like the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) can refuse to entertain the deed for sale for registration on the ground of reflection in the E.C. in respect of the properties covered under the said deed for sale, when the owner sells their properties to another person other than the proposed vendee in the agreement to sell like Anneuxre-2. WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 7. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:- In a case between Arun Kumar Chourasia Vrs. The (i) State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 (1) Civ.C.C. Patna 248 in Para No.9 that, If the transferor does not have any title or has an imperfect title to the property, the transferee on transfer will either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to the registering authority. The registering authority is bound to register it. (ii) In a case between Kailash and others Vrs. The Sub- Registrar of Assurances, Indore and another reported in AIR 1985 Madhya Pradesh 12 in Para No.15 that, It is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to register the document in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, when presented and when the duty is to be discharged in accordance with law, it necessarily excludes extraneous considerations, such as instructions or directions having no foundation in law and no public authority while so acting would introduce its own fanciful notions in the matter. In a case between Bilenbarric Steels Limited Vrs. (iii) Regional Development Commissioner for Iron & Steel and others reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 62 in Para No.8 that, Unless the relevant laws governing the matter provide clearly to that effect, such an authority cannot go into question of the merits of the transaction, to which, the documents relate. (iv) In a case between Tejpal and another Vrs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2015 (Supp.) Civ.C.C. 302 (P & H) that, Registrar cannot refuse to register a document on ground of title. Such a dispute is in the exclusive domain of Civil Court. A dispute of title can never be used before a Registrar by ay party. (v) In a case between M/s.North East Infrastructure Private Limited and Anoather Vrs. The State of Andhra WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 Pradesh and others reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. (A.P.) 220 in Para Nos.6 and 7 that, The Sub-Registrar/Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive document. He is either to register the document, if it is found legally fit or pass an order of refusal by indicating reasons for such refusal to register. In a case between P.Pappu Vrs. The Sub-Registrar (vi) reported in 2025 (2) Civ.L.J. (Madras) 205 that, Even if, a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908, to enable the Registrar to refuse Registration except Section 22-A of the said Act. In a case between Daitari Jena Vrs. State of Odisha (vii) and others reported in 2025 (1) OLR 887 in Para No.7 that, Section 34 (3) of the Registration Act do not authorizes the registering officer to enquire into the consequential legal effect as well as merit of the deed in question presented for registration and to refuse its registration expressing opinion on its merit. 8. The propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions does not empower/authorize the Sub-Registrar like the O.P. No.3 in this matter at hand, for his refusal to entertain the deed for sale indirectly questioning the title of the vendor with the same on the ground of execution of previous agreement to sell by the vendor in favour of a person other than the proposed vendee in the deed for sale. 9. That apart, there are eight criterias in Rule 147 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 empowering the Sub-Registrar like Sub- WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) for his refusal to receive the document for registration. 10. The grounds raised above by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) for his refusal to entertain/receive the deed for sale under Annexure-3 for its registration due to reflection in the E.C. about an agreement to sell by the proposed vendor in favour of the person other than the proposed vendee in the deed for sale is not coming within any of the criterias out of eight enumerated in Rule 147 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 empowering him (O.P. No.3) for non-entertaining the deed for sale under Annexure-3 for its registration. 11. Therefore, as per the discussions and observations made above, it is held that, the refusal made by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to entertain the deed for sale of the Petitioner on the ground of reflection in the E.C. about an agreement to sell by the vendor in favour of a person other than the proposed vendee in respect of the same properties cannot be sustainable under law. For which, it was the duty of the Sub- Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed for sale vide Annexure-3 (which was presented for registration by the WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 Petitioner), but, the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) has not done so. For which, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner to direct the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed for sale of the Petitioner vide Annexure-3 cannot be disallowed under law. 12. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The same must succeed.
Decision
13. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed. 14. The Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) is directed to receive the deed for sale under Annexure-3, if, presented by the Petitioner with the certified copy of this judgment for its registration and to act upon the same as per the Registration Act and Rules thereof. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 23.07.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2025 16:07:05 WP(C) No.12474 of 2025 Page 8 of 8