HARI SINGH Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 1. 10. 1996 Annexure P-1 and dated 19. 11. 1996 Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively with a further prayer for directing respondent No. 1 to register the sale deed dated 1. 10. 1996 executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 which has been refused to be registered by respondent No. 1.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner No. 1 is that his father was owner in possession of piece of land situated in Mohalla Nalapur, Narnaul. After the death of his father, the said property was inherited by the petitioner's mother, his one brother and four sisters. Mother of petitioner No. 1 also got sanctioned a building plan for constructions of two rooms from the Municipal Committee, Narnaul, vide resolution dated 5. 12. 1990. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner No. 1 expired and the construction could not be carried out. Family of petitioner No. 1 was in need of money, therefore, they agreed to sell the aforesaid plot in dispute measuring 39 square yards in favour of the petitioner No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 65,000.00 vide agreement dated 30. 7. 1996. In pursuance of the said agreement of sale petitioner No. 1 on behalf of himself and being general attorney of his sister executed a sale deed dated 1. 10. 1996 on the stamp papers of Rs. 10,075/purchased by petitioner No. 2, The said sale deed was duly executed which was duly witnessed by two independent witnesses. On the same day, the sale deed was presented by petitioner No. 1 before the Sub Registrar, Narnaul, along with two attesting witnesses for registration of the sale deed. The requisite registration charges were also deposited. The Sub Registrar had duly verified the identity of the executant of the sale deed as well as the witnesses and the purchase and also satisfied himself about the execution of the general power of attorney of the sister of petitioner No. 1. However, he refused to register the above said sale deed on the ground that the land under sale deed is related to Mandi Khuntiwala and there is a dispute regarding its ownership. The order of refusal dated 1. 10. 1996, is annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 and his sister are owners in possession of the above said plot but the Sub Registrar in an illegal and arbitrary manner refused to register the sale deed on the ground that the ownership of the property was in dispute. According to petitioner No. 1 no civil dispute concerning the property in question was pending in any Court of law, therefore, the Sub Registrar was not justified in refusing the registration of the sale deed. That order of refusal was challenged by petitioner No. 1 in appeal before the Registrar- cum-Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul. That appeal was accepted and matter was remanded to the Sub Registrar with the direction that the latter shall decide the question of ownership of the land in dispute after taking evidence from the parties and further directed that thereafter, the sale deed be registered. Copy of the order dated 19. 11. 1996 annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

(3.) IN response to the notice of motion, respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement while respondent No. 3 has filed a separate written statement. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken a preliminary objection that the land in dispute is in possession of the temple "kuttiwala" in Mohalla Nalapur, Narnaul, as owner which is looked after by the trustee of the trust known as Mandir Kuttiwala Dharamrath Trust created vide trust deed No. 1101 dated 7. 10. 1996. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to sell the land in question. It has been further pleaded that respondent No. 1 has every right to ascertain and satisfy himself about the identity of the executants and the attesting witnesses before registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was not properly presented before respondent No. 1 regarding the identity of the executant because witness No. 1 Bansi Lal, Lambardar was not from revenue estate of Narnaul and the second witness was not known to respondent No. 1, therefore, respondent No. 1 rightly refused to register the sale deed.