SUBRAMANIAN Vs. PADMAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this interlocutory application, the appellant seeks an order directing the Registry to communicate the interim orders of injunction granted by this Court on I.A. No. 1796 of 2011 to the Sub-Registrar, Chevayoor. As per the order passed on I.A. No. 1796 of 2011 on 27.08.3013, this Court injuncted the respondent in the appeal from alienating or encumbering in any manner, the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 414 of 2011 on the fie of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, for a period of six months and the said order was later extended until further orders on 28.02.2014. It is stated by the appellant in the affidavit filed in support of the application that though the orders passed by this Court on I.A. No. 1796 of 2011 were communicated to the Sub Registrar, within whose jurisdiction the plaint schedule property is situated, the same are not entered in the books maintained by him and consequently, the interim orders issued by this Court are not reflected in the encumbrance certificates issued in respect of the plaint schedule property from the Sub Registry. It is also stated in the affidavit that the particulars of the orders issued by this Court are not entered in the books maintained by the Sub Registrar on the ground that only orders which would fall with in the purview of S. 89(5) of the Registration Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short, can be entered in the books maintained at the Sub Registry. It is further stated in the affidavit that if the orders of injunction passed by this Court are not entered in the books maintained at the Sub Registry, grave prejudice would be caused to the appellant, as notwithstanding the order, the legal representatives of the respondent are attempting to alienate the plaint schedule property to third parties.

(2.) Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Kerala Act 7 of 1968, reads thus:

(3.) True, an order of injunction restraining alienation would not come within the purview' of S. 89(5) of the Act. An order of prohibitory injunction only interferes with the mode of enjoyment of property. If for that reason, the particulars of such orders are not entered in the books maintained at the Sub Registry, the litigants who do not have any respect for orders of the courts will be able to defeat such orders by alienating the property to third parties. If orders creating, declaring, transferring, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest to or in immovable property and orders of attachment of immovable property are required by law to be entered in Book 1 for the benefit of those who apply for search of encumbrances in respect of that property, there is no reason why an order of injunction restraining alienation of the property shall not be entered in Book 1 maintained at the Sub Registry. In Mary v. Issac, 2014 1 KerLT 923), this Court held that though there is no provision to communicate the orders restraining alienation of immovable properties to the office of the Sub Registrar concerned, with a view to prevent the litigants from violating such orders, the same can be ordered to be communicated to the concerned Sub Registry by the court, in exercise of the inherent powers. However, if the registering officers take the stand that only the particulars of the orders provided for in S. 89(5) of the Act will be entered in Book 1, no purpose would be served by merely communicating the orders to the Sub Registrar concerned, unless there is a direction to enter the particulars of the order in Book 1 maintained at the Sub Registry. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that to meet the ends of justice, a civil court passing an order of injunction restraining alienation of a specific immovable property, in exercise of the powers under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure can certainly direct such orders to be communicated to the Sub Registry concerned with a direction to enter the particulars of the order in Book 1. However, in such cases, when the suit or appeal or the proceedings wherein the interim order of injunction restraining alienation is passed terminates, and the interim order is vacated the said fact also should be communicated with a further direction to make a similar entry in Book 1. In the result, I.A. No. 2734 of 2014 is allowed and the Registry is directed to communicate the orders of injunction issued by this Court on 27/8/2013 and on 28/2/2014 in I.A. No. 1796 of 2013 together with a memorandum describing the property, to the Sub Registrar, Chevayoor, with a direction to file the copy of the memorandum in Book 1. The Registry is also directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government so as to enable the Government to consider introducing appropriate amendments to the Act to take care of the situation dealt with in this order.