K.T. PLANTATION PVT. LTD. REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI K. SRIKISHAN HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 176, ST. JOHNS ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 042 Vs. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA HAVING OFFICE AT VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, THE DISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent -District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District, Jayanagar, Bangalore to hear and dispose of the appeal bearing R.A.NO. 3/1992 -99, expeditiously. The petitioner claims that be had entered into an agreement of sale with Late Smt Devika Rani for purchase of a portion of land in Tatguni Estate and that an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid as advance sale consideration. According to the petitioner, a supplementary agreement was entered into on 21.09.1991 followed by the execution of sale deed dated 16.03.1993 in favour of the petitioner by receiving the balance amount. The sale deed was presented to the 3rd respondent -Sub Registrar, Kengeri Town, Bangalore on 07.03.1992 for registration. Stat Devika Rani failed to appear before the 3rd respondent, hence, the sale deed was not registered. This made the petitioner to file a suit on O.S. No. 122/1992 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, against the Deputy Registrar seeking declaration of their rights under the sale deed dated 16.02.1992.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, on 30.07.1992, the Sub Registrar, Kengeri, issued notice to the petitioner refusing registration of the sale deed on the ground that Smt. Devika Rani did not turn up to confirm the execution of sale deed. Against this communication issued on 30.07.1992, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'D', the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Registrar -2nd respondent herein, in R.A.NO. 3/1992 -93. As this appeal is not disposed of, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal

(3.) IT now transpires that the suit filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed and the regular appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit came to be allowed and the suit has been decreed on 07.10.2006. It is also to be noted that the respondent No. 4 herein Me. Mary Joyce Poonacha has challenged the Judgment and decree passed in the regular appeal before this Court in R.S.A.No. 70/2007. The said appeal is pending admission sod there is no interim order of stay, It is in this background the petitioner contends that the District Registrar ought to have proceeded with the hearing of the appeal and disposed of the same in terms of the observation made and direction issued by the Apex Court.