VEERABADHRAPPA Vs. JAGADISHGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS herein were respondents 5 and 6 in W. P. Nos. 21974-75/1998. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 herein were respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 5 and 3 here in were respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ Petitions.

(2.) LATE Chatura Chand Shah (father of respondents 5 and 6)was the owner of Sy. No. 61/1 measuring 7acres 6 guntas and respondent No. 6 was the owner of Sy. No. 60/2 measuring 12 acres 8 guntas in Choudapur Village, Biligi Taluk, Bagalkot District. Respondents No. 6 sold land bearing in Sy. No. 60/2 in favour of second appellant under sale deed dated 4. 3. 1982 for a consideration of 25,000/- Chatura Chand Shah sold land bearing Sy. No. 61/1 to the first appellant under sale deed dated 20. 10. 1982 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/00. The Sub-Registrar, Biligi (fourth respondent) being of the opinion that documents were undervalued, kept them pending by assigning pending numbers and issued notices dated 30. 11. 1983 to the appellants informing that the sale deeds in their favour were undervalued and that the correct value was Rs. 1,91,300/-and Rs. 3,16,450/ -. The said notices required the first appellant to pay Rs. 18,320/- and the second appellant to pay Rs. 32,070/- as deficit stamp duty and Registration charges on the difference in value.

(3.) THE said notices dated 30. 11. 1983 were challenged by the appellants in W. P. Nos. 5046-5047/1986. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by order dated 11. 11. 1993. This Court quashed the notices and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the light of the decision in MOHAN SHET vs STATE OF KARNATAKA holding that the Registering Officer could not decline to register the documents on the ground of under-valuation. This Court also observed that if the Sub-Registrar was of the view that the properties covered by the sale deeds were undervalued, he ought to have referred to the documents on the basis of which he was of the view that sale deeds were undervalued and thereafter made an appropriate order. The learned Single Judge held that there was nothing to show that Sub-Registrar had reason to believe that properties were not properly valued. The effect of disposing of the said Writ Petitions in terms of the earlier decision in MOHAN SHET s case was to direct the Sub-Registrar, Biligi to proceed in accordance with law and register the sale deeds in favour of appellants 1 and 2, unless there was any other impediment against the registration.