Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Binod Kumar Behera … Petitioner. -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. S.K. Nayak (2), Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel. P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 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 directing Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) in the district of Bharak to accept the deed for sale of the petitioner for registration, because, the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) orally refused to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner for registration expressing that, he will not receive the same, because, in respect of the properties of the said deed for sale, a Civil Suit is pending. 2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, when, he (petitioner) moved to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) after booking online slot on dated 20.09.2025 for selling properties indicated in the deed for WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 sale to the Opp. Party No.3 and presented that deed for sale before the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2), the Sub- Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) did not receive that deed for sale of the petitioner for registration and orally refused to receive the same expressing that, he (Opp. Party No.2) is aware that, a Civil Suit vide C.S. No.819 of 2022 is pending in respect of the properties covered under the deed for sale of the petitioner, for which, he (Opp. Party No.2) shall not receive that deed for sale of the petitioner for registration. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for directing the Opp. Party No.2 to receive his deed for sale and to register the same. 4. The law is very much clear that, the Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document, when the same is presented for registration. He/she is either to register the document or to refuse to register the same indicating the reasons for non-registration, if that document is not legally fit for registration. WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 According to The Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988, when a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to receive the same, but if the said document is not in compliance with the provisions of law, the Sub-Registrar may refuse to accept that document for registration assigning the reasons in writing about the same. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: I. II. a case between North East In Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 220 (Andhra Pradesh) and in a case between Antaryami Nayak Vs. State of Odisha & Others in WP(C) No.18548 of 2025 decided on 11.07.2025 that, the Sub- Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to receive the document and would consider the fitness of it for registration or otherwise. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 empowers the Registration Authorities to receive a document which is presented for registration and process the same. 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 WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 III. IV. V. VI. 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. 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 in the Court. Sub-Registrar has no pending 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 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 of any concern to the registering authority. The registering authority is bound to register it. (Para No.3) In a case between Rakhal Chandra Nayak Vs. State of Odisha decided on 17.09.2025 in WP(C) No.23534 of 2025 (Orissa High Court) that, mere pendency of a Civil Suit cannot be a ground of refusal of registration of the deed by the Sub- Registrar. 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 WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 exclusive domain of the civil court. A dispute on title can never be used before a Registrar by any party. (Para No.1) 5. When in this matter at hand, the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) orally refused to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit vide C.S. No.819 of 2022 against the petitioner, the said conduct of the Opp. Party No.2 i.e. his oral refusal to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner as well as above reason of oral refusal to register the deed for sale of the petitioner in favour of the Opp. Party No.3 on the ground of pendency of Civil Suit in respect of the properties of that deed are not legally acceptable. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: I. 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 purchaser of the suit properties during the pendency of the suit is bound by the decision of the suit. II. In a case between Jihas Vs. Salim reported in 2014 (3) Civ. Law Times (Kerala) 280 that, a purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of the suit is WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 bound by decree obtained against his/her vendor or his/her successor in interest. (Para No.9) III. 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) 6. So, in view of the propositions of law as clarified in the ratio of the above decisions, the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) had no jurisdiction or authority under law to refuse orally to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner and he (Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2)) had also no jurisdiction under law to refuse the registration of the deed for sale of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit, because, purchaser of the petitioner i.e. Opp. Party No.3 shall be bound by the decree passed in the Civil Suit. 7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner to direct the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner and to register the same. For which, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed. WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. 9. The Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) is directed to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner on presentation of the same annexing the certified copy of this Judgment and to act upon the same on the very same day of its presentation as per The Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988. After registration, the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak (O.P. No.2) shall return that registered sale deed to the petitioner within 3 days complying all the formalities thereof as per the Rule 100 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 of I.G.R of Odisha. 10. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
Decision
disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 26 .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: 27-Sep-2025 10:34:52 WP(C) No.27695 of 2025 Page 8 of 8