Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Rakhal Chandra Nayak … Petitioner. -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel. P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 1 of 11 Date of Hearing : 03.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :17.09.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order of refusal to register the deed for sale of the petitioner passed under Section 71(1) of the Registration Act by the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) on dated 31.07.2025.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Parties. 3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, on dated 31.07.2025, the petitioner presented a deed for sale before the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) for selling his properties covered under the said deed for sale in favour of the Opp. Party Nos.5 to 7, but, the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) refused to register the same as per Section 71 (1) of The Indian Registration Act, 1908 applying the provisions of WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 2 of 11 Section 22-A (c) of The Registration Act, 1908 assigning the reasons that, (i) a Civil Suit bearing No.184 of 2025 filed by One Kelu Charan Swain against the petitioner of this writ petition in respect of the properties covered in the said deed for sale is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nimapara, Puri for adjudication of the rights of the parties in respect of the properties covered in that deed and if, the registration of the deed for sale shall be made, then, the same may affect the rights of the parties to the Civil Suit and; (ii) as per Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882, during the pendency of the Civil Suit like C.S. No.184 of 2025, the transfer of the properties, those are the subject matter of the Civil Suit cannot be made, because, transfer in case of any through sale deed, the same will affect the right of other parties who has filed the suit. 4. It is pertinent to discuss and analyze the legality and sustainability of the above two grounds/reasons assigned by the Opp. Party No.2 for the refusal of registration of the deed for sale of the petitioner. 5. So far the first ground/reason assigned by the Sub- Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) in the impugned order WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 3 of 11 i.e. the Civil Suit bearing No.184 of 2025 filed by One Kelu Charan Swain against the petitioner of this writ petition in respect of the properties covered in the said deed for sale is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nimapara, Puri for adjudication of the rights of the parties in respect of the properties covered in that deed and if, the registration of the deed for sale shall be made, then, the same may affect the adjudication of the Civil Suit is concerned; On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: I. II. In a case between D. Venkateswar Reddy Vs. State of Telengana & Others reported in 2021 (4) Civil Court Cases 429 (Tel.) that, the registering authority can be injuncted from entertaining a deed of conveyance or any other document affecting right/interest in a property only if an injunction order by a Civil Court or an order of this Court is in operation imposing restraint on alienation or creating third party interest on a property. As a corollary, mere original pendency suit/appellate suit or case before this Court is not a ground to injunct. (Para No.12) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and Others Vrs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 1989 (2) Civil Court Cases 172 (Patna) & 1988 SCC Online Patna 142 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/she will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not an of WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 4 of 11 III. IV. V. VI. of any concern to the registering authority. The registering authority is bound to register it. (Para No.3) In a case between Tejpal and another Vrs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2015 (Supp.) Civil Court Cases 471 (Punjab & Haryana), Sub- Registrar cannot join issues on title for refusing to register the instrument. The said dispute is in the exclusive domain of the civil court. A dispute on title can never be used before a Registrar by any party. (Para No.1) In a case between Bilenbarric Steels Limited Vrs. Regional Development Commissioner for Iron & Steel and others reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 62, 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 document relate, but to register the same. (Para No.8) In a case between Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan Parmarthik Nyas Vrs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 703 (Madhya Pradesh) that, refusal to register the sale deed on the ground that, a dispute about title is pending in the Court. Sub-Registrar has no authority to refuse to register a document on the ground that, the vendor/transferor has no title to the property in question and is not competent to execute the sale deed. Transferee would get the right, title and interest of his vendor/transferor, if its vendor succeeds in the litigation. In a case between Jajati Keshari Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha & Others reported in 2025 (I) OLR 936 that, the Sub-Registrar has no authority or jurisdiction to refuse the registration of the deed for sale on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit in the Civil Court in respect of the properties covered under the deed for sale in question. WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 5 of 11 VII. 6. When In a case between K. Gopi Vs. the Sub- Registrar & Others reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 320 (SC) that, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or registering authority to ascertain, whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. (Para No.15) in this matter at hand, the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) has refused to register the deed for sale presented by the petitioner on dated 31.07.2025 on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit vide C.S. No.184 of 2025 filed by one Kelu Charan Swain against the petitioner, the said reason for refusal of registration cannot be sustainable under law in view of the propositions of law enuniciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and Hon’ble Courts only for the reason that, mere pendency of the Civil Suit in respect of the properties covered under the deed for sale cannot be a ground for the Sub- Registrar to refuse it to register. 7. So far the 2nd ground/reason assigned by the Sub- Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) in the impugned order for refusal of registration i.e. as per Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882, during the pendency of the Civil Suit like C.S. No.184 of WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 6 of 11 2025, the transfer of the properties, those are the subject matter of the Civil Suit cannot be made, because, in case of any transfer through sale deed, the same will affect the right of other parties who has filed the suit is concerned; As per law, a purchaser of property during the pendency of suit would be bound by the decree of the civil suit. 8. Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882 does not prohibit for selling the properties of the said suit during the pendency of the suit. Because, selling of the suit properties after filing of the suit shall always remain subject to the final outcome of the suit in question, but, as per law, Such sale or transfer are not ipso facto illegal. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: I. In a case between Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap & Others Vs. Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar & Others reported in 2019 (4) CCC 32 (SC) that, selling part of the suit properties after filing of the suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and the fate of the sale transaction shall remain subject to the final outcome of the suit in question. But, that sale transaction does not become illegal automatically. (Para No.13) WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 7 of 11 II. In a case between T. Ravi & Another Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha & Others reported in 2017 (2) CCC 5 (SC) that, sale deed executed during pendency of suit is not void, but valid to the extent of vendor’s share. (Para No.36) III. In a case between M/s. Graftek Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. Sri Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, Bije Bhubaneswar reported in 1998 (II) OLR 404 that, a lis pendens purchaser is bound by the decision of the suit. IV. In a case between Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited & Others reported in (2013) Civ.L.T 321 (SC) that, lis pendens sale/transfer does not annul conveyance or transfer otherwise, but renders it subservient to rights of parties to litigation. (Para No.24) V. In a case between Jihas Vs. Salim reported in 2014 (3) Civ. Law Times (Kerala) 280 that, lis pendens purchaser is bound by decree obtained against his/her vendor or his/her purchaser in interest. (Para No.9) VI. In a case between Satpal Singh & Others Vs. Jagpal Singh & Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C 709 (P&H) that, principle of lis pendens does not annul transfer, but renders it subservient to rights of parties to a litigation. (Para No.15) 9. The propositions of law as clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and Hon’ble Courts, Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882 does not prohibit the party to WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 8 of 11 the suit from selling/transferring the properties those are the subject matter of the suit during the pendency of such suit. Because, as per law, the purchaser shall be bound by the result of decree in the suit in respect of the properties covered under the deed in question. 10. So, in view of the aforesaid clarified propositions of law, the reasons assigned by the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) in refusing to register the deed for sale of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit in respect of the properties covered therein applying Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882 cannot be sustainable under law. 11. As per the discussions and observations made above, the above both the grounds assigned by the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) in the impugned order (Annexure- 4 of this writ petition) for the refusal of the registration of the deed for sale of the petitioner have become unsustainable under law. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order (Annexure-4) passed by WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 9 of 11 the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) through this writ petition filed by the petitioner. 12. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 13. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. 14. The impugned order dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure-4) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (opposite party No.2) is quashed/set aside. 15. Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (opposite party No.2) is directed to act upon that deed for sale of the petitioner, on the very same day of production of the certified copy of this Judgment by the petitioner remaining present with his vendees, identifier and the witnesses of the deed as per the Registration Act, 1908 and the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988. 16. After registration of the sale deed, the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur shall return that sale deed to the petitioner within 3 days of its registration complying all the formalities thereof as per the Rule 100 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 10 of 11 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 of I.G.R of Odisha.
Decision
17. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 17 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 19-Sep-2025 11:03:36 WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 Page 11 of 11