High Court · 2025

Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002597 of 1995 Petitioner :- Raunak Ali And Others Respondent :- Distt. Registar And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S. Sahai,Madhav Srivastava,N.C. Upadhyay,Rahul Mishra,Sandeep Singh,Uma Shankar Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.S. Singh Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. In regard to respondent No.3, notice was issued and it was found deemed to be sufficient.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of Sub - Registrar dated 15.11.1995.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No.3 moved an application dated 10.08.1988 before the Registrar- respondent No.3 alleging that the land in question was transferred by sale through the sale deed dated 30.01.1979 but the said sale deed could not be registered and was sent to the Registrar with a report that the stamp duty was in-sufficient. Subsequently, it was found that the stamp duty was sufficient and notice was dropped but in the meantime the original sale deed was lost and as such it could not be registered.

5. In the said application, it was alleged that certain persons are trying to obtain sale deed and as such the duplicate copy of the sale deed be directed to be registered by the Sub Registrar. Petitioner Nos.2 to 9 filed objections to the said application moved by respondent No.3.

6. The petitioners contended that the application moved by respondent No.3 was not maintainable and no sale deed was executed by Azmat Ali and Azmat Ali had died prior to the alleged date of the sale deed and on the death of Azmat Ali his son Raunak Ali being the sole heir has been recorded as heir in revenue records.

7. Raunak Ali executed a registered sale deed on 09.11.1990 after receiving a consideration of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 and since the date of sale deed, petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are in possession and are bhumidhar and mutation has also been made in their favour.

8. The petitioners contended that it is totally incorrect that the sale deed was misplace and Azmat Ali never executed any sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 Habib Khan. In the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1 Raunak Ali before the Registrar, he stated on oath that he came in possession over the land in question after the death of Azmat Ali and mutation has been affected in his name. Raunak Ali further contended that no sale deed was executed by his father Azmat Ali in favour of respondent No.3 at any time nor the respondent No.3 is in possession.

9. Respondent No.3 Habib Khan filed regular suit No.41/93 against the petitioners for land in question seeking relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 09.11.1990 executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 and also claimed a relief for permanent injunction. In regular suit No.41/93, respondent No.3 applied for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with possession before the trial court which was rejected by IV Additional Munsif, Bahraich vide order dated 05.05.1994.

10. Petitioner Nos.2 to 9 also filed regular suit No.636/93 in the court of Munsif, Bahraich for the same land which is involved in the instant petition for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.3 and two others from causing any interference and possession of petitioners.

11. The District Registrar was apprised by the petitioner No.1 that two suits are pending relating to the same land with respect to which the question of registration is pending before him, however, no opportunity of evidence was afforded to the parties muchless to the petitioner and it was vehemently denied by son of Azmat Ali- now deceased.

12. The Registrar vide letter dated 12.12.1991 sought guidance from the Registrar General (Stamp) as to what should be done in this particular case. The petitioners could not know as to what guidance or opinion was given by the Registrar General (Registration) to the Registrar, however, the Registrar by the impugned order dated 15.11.1995 directed the Sub Registrar to register the duplicate copy of the sale deed. The District Registrar directed the Sub Registrar for execution of sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 but due to interim order, the sale deed could not be executed.

13. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Sub Registrar is without jurisdiction and also contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Marry Joy Poonachav Vs. M/s K.T. Plantations Pvt. Ltd. and ors.; 1995 Suppl.(2) SCC 459.

14. His next submission is that the Registrar should have stayed his hands awaiting the decision of the Civil Court. He further submitted that the Registration could only be possible when the execution was admitted. In the instant case, the execution being completely denied relating to the alleged sale deed dated 30.01.1979 in favour of respondent No.3, the Registrar could not direct registration of the sale deed and that also after 16 years.

15. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC submitted that after the judgment in the civil suit, in terms of compromise, the petitioners would have filed recall application for recall of order of registration of sale deed executed by the Registrar. He further submitted that the order passed by the Registrar in registering the sale deed does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is just and valid.

16. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

17. This Court is of the opinion that once the Sub Registrar executed the sale deed vide order dated 15.11.1995, the judgment and order passed in civil suit was not before the Sub Registrar, therefore, the judgment and order passed in civil suit cannot be relied upon as it was passed on 15.02.2023.

18. In the opinion of this Court, as the suit was decided in terms of compromise, wherein it was held that there was no sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.3. It has also been admitted by the parties that no sale deed was executed prior to passing of the judgment by the Sub Registrar. Therefore, in this opinion of this Court in case the petitioners file a recall application before the District Registrar (Stamp) annexing copy of judgment and order dated 15.02.2023 ventilating their grievances in regard to land in dispute, the District Registrar (Stamp) shall consider the facts and circumstances of the material placed by the parties and shall pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 / Adarsh K Singh ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002597 of 1995 Petitioner :- Raunak Ali And Others Respondent :- Distt. Registar And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S. Sahai,Madhav Srivastava,N.C. Upadhyay,Rahul Mishra,Sandeep Singh,Uma Shankar Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.S. Singh Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. In regard to respondent No.3, notice was issued and it was found deemed to be sufficient.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of Sub - Registrar dated 15.11.1995.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No.3 moved an application dated 10.08.1988 before the Registrar- respondent No.3 alleging that the land in question was transferred by sale through the sale deed dated 30.01.1979 but the said sale deed could not be registered and was sent to the Registrar with a report that the stamp duty was in-sufficient. Subsequently, it was found that the stamp duty was sufficient and notice was dropped but in the meantime the original sale deed was lost and as such it could not be registered.

5. In the said application, it was alleged that certain persons are trying to obtain sale deed and as such the duplicate copy of the sale deed be directed to be registered by the Sub Registrar. Petitioner Nos.2 to 9 filed objections to the said application moved by respondent No.3.

6. The petitioners contended that the application moved by respondent No.3 was not maintainable and no sale deed was executed by Azmat Ali and Azmat Ali had died prior to the alleged date of the sale deed and on the death of Azmat Ali his son Raunak Ali being the sole heir has been recorded as heir in revenue records.

7. Raunak Ali executed a registered sale deed on 09.11.1990 after receiving a consideration of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 and since the date of sale deed, petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are in possession and are bhumidhar and mutation has also been made in their favour.

8. The petitioners contended that it is totally incorrect that the sale deed was misplace and Azmat Ali never executed any sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 Habib Khan. In the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1 Raunak Ali before the Registrar, he stated on oath that he came in possession over the land in question after the death of Azmat Ali and mutation has been affected in his name. Raunak Ali further contended that no sale deed was executed by his father Azmat Ali in favour of respondent No.3 at any time nor the respondent No.3 is in possession.

9. Respondent No.3 Habib Khan filed regular suit No.41/93 against the petitioners for land in question seeking relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 09.11.1990 executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 and also claimed a relief for permanent injunction. In regular suit No.41/93, respondent No.3 applied for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with possession before the trial court which was rejected by IV Additional Munsif, Bahraich vide order dated 05.05.1994.

10. Petitioner Nos.2 to 9 also filed regular suit No.636/93 in the court of Munsif, Bahraich for the same land which is involved in the instant petition for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.3 and two others from causing any interference and possession of petitioners.

11. The District Registrar was apprised by the petitioner No.1 that two suits are pending relating to the same land with respect to which the question of registration is pending before him, however, no opportunity of evidence was afforded to the parties muchless to the petitioner and it was vehemently denied by son of Azmat Ali- now deceased.

12. The Registrar vide letter dated 12.12.1991 sought guidance from the Registrar General (Stamp) as to what should be done in this particular case. The petitioners could not know as to what guidance or opinion was given by the Registrar General (Registration) to the Registrar, however, the Registrar by the impugned order dated 15.11.1995 directed the Sub Registrar to register the duplicate copy of the sale deed. The District Registrar directed the Sub Registrar for execution of sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 but due to interim order, the sale deed could not be executed.

13. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Sub Registrar is without jurisdiction and also contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Marry Joy Poonachav Vs. M/s K.T. Plantations Pvt. Ltd. and ors.; 1995 Suppl.(2) SCC 459.

14. His next submission is that the Registrar should have stayed his hands awaiting the decision of the Civil Court. He further submitted that the Registration could only be possible when the execution was admitted. In the instant case, the execution being completely denied relating to the alleged sale deed dated 30.01.1979 in favour of respondent No.3, the Registrar could not direct registration of the sale deed and that also after 16 years.

15. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC submitted that after the judgment in the civil suit, in terms of compromise, the petitioners would have filed recall application for recall of order of registration of sale deed executed by the Registrar. He further submitted that the order passed by the Registrar in registering the sale deed does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is just and valid.

16. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

17. This Court is of the opinion that once the Sub Registrar executed the sale deed vide order dated 15.11.1995, the judgment and order passed in civil suit was not before the Sub Registrar, therefore, the judgment and order passed in civil suit cannot be relied upon as it was passed on 15.02.2023.

18. In the opinion of this Court, as the suit was decided in terms of compromise, wherein it was held that there was no sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.3. It has also been admitted by the parties that no sale deed was executed prior to passing of the judgment by the Sub Registrar. Therefore, in this opinion of this Court in case the petitioners file a recall application before the District Registrar (Stamp) annexing copy of judgment and order dated 15.02.2023 ventilating their grievances in regard to land in dispute, the District Registrar (Stamp) shall consider the facts and circumstances of the material placed by the parties and shall pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 / Adarsh K Singh ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench