LAWS(KAR)-2002-9-23

ANJINAMMA Vs. PUTTAHARIYAPPA

Decided On September 25, 2002
ANJINAMMA Appellant
V/S
PUTTAHARIYAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is listed in the preliminary hearing, having regard to the nature of relief prayed in this petition, by the consent of the learned counsel for other parties, petitioner is heard on merits and the petition is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-C dated 18-3-2002 issued by the 7th respondent in refusing to register the document presented by them after obtaining the decree from the competent civil Court in the original suit No. 246/93 as the registering authority has refused to register the document presented by them as the cause of action arose for them under S. 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short 'the Act' ).

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court has determined the rights of the parties and answered the contentious issues in favour of the petitioner and passed Judgment and Decree dated 7-3-2002 permitting the petitioner to present the document before the 7th and 8th respondent for registration of the same in accordance with law. The petitioners presented the document for registration after obtaining the decree referred to supra before 7th respondent after lapse of one year. The document should have been presented for registration within 30 days from the date of passing of the decree by the competent Civil Court. That has not been done in the instant case for the reasons stated at paragraph-4 of this petition. Therefore, impugned endorsement is issued by the 7th respondent. The correctness of the said endorsement is questioned in this writ petition placing reliance upon the Judgment of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1935 Patna 497 in support of the proposition that the delay in presentation of the document for its registration was due mainly to the mistaken notion of the Court that could not ask the document to be returned to him to be presented for registration before the expiry of thirty days as prescribed under S. 77 of the Act and hence should not be deprived of the benefit of the decree passed in his favour in consequence of the mistaken view.