SULOCHANAMMA Vs. H NANJUNDASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner purchased certain lands from the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 48. 000/- under a sale deed dated 21-5-1987. When the sale deed was presented for registration on the same day after fulfilling all the requirements, an endorsement also had been made by the Sub-Registrar to that effect. Receipt for having paid the requisite charge is produced as Annexure-A. Instead of registering the documents, the 2nd respond-ent-Sub-Registrar made a refusal endorsement on the deed itself to the following effect-"the RTC, RR and 1l of the properties were referred to the Tahsildar, Kanakapura in this Office Letter No. 309/97-98, dated 25-6-1983 as per the powers conferred under Government Notification No. RD 132 ERG 76, dated 14-3. 1979 and RD 44 EST 81, dated 30-3-1981 for the purpose of ascertaining whether the registration of the document is opposed to public policy or not. The Tahsildar in his Letter No. DM 13/ 87-88, has intimated that the copies of RTC, RR and IL are bogus and false and does not tally with the records maintained in the Taluk Office. Registration of the document is therefore refused". The petitioner filed an appeal against the refusal to register the document before the 3rd respondent-District Registrar. In the said appeal the first respondent filed a memo to allow the appeal and to direct the Sub:registrar to register the document. However, by the impugned order at Annexure-D, dated 30-11-1987 the 3rd respondent rejected the appeal holding that the sale amounts to fragment. Thereafter, the petitioner presented an application as per Annexure-E before the District Magistrate praying to set aside the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar on the sale deed and tc> direct the Sub-Registrar to register the document. Since the same was not at all considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the said application and to pass appropriate orders, to quash the order passed by him vide Annexure-D and also to direct respondents 2 and 3 to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) MR. Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that on the date of presentation of the deed the first respondent vendor was present before the Sub-Registrar; that the requisite fee was paid; that the execution of the document was admitted; that one H. M. Nagaraj was also present for identification; that the Sub-Registrar endorsed for having presented the document for registration and issued the receipt as per Annexure-A. He further submits that in spite of fulfilling all the formalities and complying all the requirements the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document.

(3.) THE averments made in the writ petition and the contentions raised are not disputed by the respondents. No counter is filed denying the petition averments, probably on account of the fact that they were unable to defend the action questioned in this writ petition. Be that as it may.