Kerala High Court Directs Registration of Unregistered Sale Deed for 213.27 Hectares of Land Despite Pending Special Leave Petition Before Supreme Court, Subject to Final Outcome

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Kerala directed the Sub Registrar to proceed with the registration of the unregistered sale deed (Ext.P1(B)) in accordance with the law, within a period of one month from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. However, the registration of this deed and any subsequent acts based on the registration would be subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) that was pending before the Supreme Court.

Facts:

The petitioner, a company engaged in land transactions, entered into an agreement with M/s. Goldview Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of 213.27 hectares of land located in Elappara Village, Peermade Taluk. To formalize the transaction, the petitioner and the seller submitted three separate documents for registration: Ext.P1, Ext.P1(A), and Ext.P1(B). Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(A) were registered by the Sub Registrar, while Ext.P1(B) was not registered.

The Sub Registrar communicated to the petitioner that the third document, Ext.P1(B), could not be registered, citing instructions from the District Collector, the third respondent. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner through a communication (Ext.P3). In response to this refusal, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register Ext.P1(B) and sought a direction from the Court to compel the Sub Registrar to register the document.

Issues:

The primary issue before the Court was whether the Sub Registrar could be directed to register the third document (Ext.P1(B)) despite the refusal based on the directions issued by the District Collector, which had led to the refusal of registration.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that it had complied with all the legal formalities necessary for the registration of the documents, including Ext.P1(B), which remained unregistered. Since the first two documents had already been registered by the Sub Registrar, the petitioner contended that there was no valid legal reason for withholding the registration of Ext.P1(B). The petitioner thus sought the Court’s intervention to direct the Sub Registrar to proceed with the registration of Ext.P1(B) to complete the transaction.

Respondent’s Arguments:

In their defense, the respondents—particularly the third respondent (District Collector)—referred to a judgment in W.A.No.102/2022, where the Court had issued directions regarding the registration of certain documents. The respondents indicated that the first two documents (Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(A)) were registered in compliance with those directions. Furthermore, the respondents mentioned that an SLP was filed against the judgment in W.A.No.102/2022 before the Supreme Court, which potentially affected the registration process. The respondents submitted that even though an interim order had initially been granted by the Supreme Court, it was not extended, and thus the legal proceedings related to the registration were under uncertainty due to the pending SLP.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court examined the legal framework surrounding the registration of documents under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. It noted that the role of the Sub Registrar is to ensure that the necessary legal formalities are adhered to and that documents presented for registration are processed according to the law. The Court further reviewed the judgment in W.A.No.102/2022, which had set a precedent for the registration of certain documents. The key aspect was whether the Sub Registrar could be compelled to register Ext.P1(B), given that the registration of Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(A) had been completed under the directions of the Court, and considering the ongoing appeal before the Supreme Court.

Precedent Analysis:

The judgment in W.A.No.102/2022 played a crucial role in guiding the registration of the first two documents. In that judgment, the Court had directed the registration of certain documents, and the respondents argued that the registration of Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(A) was carried out in line with these directions. The issue, therefore, arose as to whether Ext.P1(B) should also be registered under similar directions, particularly given the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court carefully considered the legal position and the facts at hand. It noted that since the first two documents (Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(A)) had already been registered in compliance with the directions of the Court in W.A.No.102/2022, there was no valid reason to withhold the registration of Ext.P1(B). The Court emphasized that the registration of Ext.P1(B) should proceed as it formed part of the same transaction. However, recognizing the pending legal challenge (the SLP before the Supreme Court), the Court issued a conditional order, allowing the registration to occur but subject to the outcome of the SLP. This ensured that the registration would be consistent with the final decision in the appeal process.

Conclusion:

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Sub Registrar to register Ext.P1(B) within one month from the receipt of the judgment, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding the SLP. This ruling ensures that the registration process is not unduly delayed, while also taking into account the uncertainty surrounding the final outcome of the appeal.

Implications:

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the legal formalities and judicial directions regarding the registration of documents. It also highlights the Court’s approach to balancing procedural compliance with ongoing legal challenges. The ruling is significant as it ensures that the registration of the document will proceed, but the rights of the parties involved remain contingent on the final decision of the Supreme Court, which may ultimately affect the legality of the registration. This conditional approach provides a legal safeguard for all parties, ensuring that any action taken is in line with the ultimate judicial outcome.

Also Read – Supreme Court Alters Conviction to Section 304 IPC: “Appellant Arrived Without a Weapon and Used a Bamboo Stick Picked Up During Spontaneous Altercation; Prosecution Failed to Prove Premeditation or Motive”