CUSTOM SEARCH

Loading...

TOPICS AVAILABLE IN THIS BLOG

CASE LAW ON REGISTRATIONS IN KARNATAKA




The documents of which registration is necessary under the T.P.Act but not under the registration act fall within the scope of registration act and if not registered are not admissible as evidence of transaction effecting any immovable property comprised therein and do not affect any such immoveable property. Raghunath & othrs case: AIR 1969 SC 1316(1319,1320).

The documents of exchange of properties are compulsorily registrable. But some exceptional cases were decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court. In Bhagwan Kaur case: AIR 1990 P&H 89: Where by oral agreement possession exchanged and delivered and revenue records are mutated accordingly. Parties are in possession for long time. It was held that “The exchange cannot be invalidated because it is not registered.” In Paramjit Singh case: AIR 2005 P&H 4: There was a oral exchange of land. Possession delivered and revenue entries mutated and after oral agreement is fully acted upon the parties at later stage executed the document. It was held that “ May be out of abundant caution, the parties had decided to execute the document admitting the factum of oral agreement and as no new right title was conveyed by the said document, it does not require compulsory registration.

A document of mortgage is compulsorily registrable. If not registered, the deed can only be used to evidence debt. AIR 1964 Pat 241.


1. When the agreement itself is not compulsorily registrable, the deed of assignment of rights thereunder cannot be placed on a higher pedestal. The reassignment deed is not a document compulsorily registrable. Ganapaty Govindaiah and Others v Ningappa Ramappa and Others, 1980(1) Kar. LJ. 89 (DB).



2. A document required to be registered compulsorily — Not registered — What effect? Undoubtedly the document involved in the instant case is a sale deed. It requires to be registered, both under Section 17 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. If a sale deed is not registered in the case of a tangible immovable property, value of which is Rs. 100/- and upwards, it is not recognised as a completed sale deed and does not convey any title. Equitable considerations are entirely foreign to the concept of conveyance of title, in view of the statutory provisions. Application of equity is confined to a limited class of cases such as Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, non-registered sale deed is not permitted to be looked into for the purpose of finding out whether the title has passed to the buyer and whether such a document affects any immovable property comprised therein. The fact whether the first respondent is in actual possession of the property in question may be a collateral purpose but that purpose cannot be sought to be achieved so as to advance other purposes prohibited under Section 49 of the Act. The limited purpose for which the deed could be produced is to prove the character of the possession at the most. That will not solve the question involved in the instant case. — Mrs. Devikarani Roerich and Another v M/s. K.T. Plantations Private Limited, Bangalore and Another, 1993(4) Kar. LJ. 742.



3. Mortgage with possession — Subsequent release of a portion of property — Registration Compulsory — Absence of registration — Document admissible in evidence only to prove factum of payment — Explained. — R. Krishnamurthy v Smt. Annapurnamma and Others, 1988(3) Kar. LJ. 185 : AIR 1989 Kant. 209.



4. Sales of property under a registered sale deed — Purchaser's possession of the property disturbed by the claim of prior creation of a right of maintenance in the property in favour of the seller's wife — The document creating interest in the property — Not registered — Held: A document creating interest in immovable property is necessarily to be registered. Such a document requiring registration, but not registered is inadmissible as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such right. —- Smt. Lakshmamma v Sombegowda and Others, 1995(2) Kar. LJ. 228.


5. Agreement of loan and memorandum reciting earlier deposit of title deeds — Registration. —An agreement referring to the loan, the mode of repayment and its utilisation (which does not mention about any mortgage) does not require to be stamped under Article 6, Schedule of Karnataka Stamp Act, nor requires to be registered. A memorandum stating that on an earlier date a mortgage by deposit of title deeds has been created also does not require to be stamped or registered. — Syndicate Bank v Sowdagar Moinuddin and Sons and Others, 1981(2) Kar. L.J. 416 : AIR 1982 Kant. 351.



6. An award about division of properties which did not of its own accord create any interest in immoveable property but recorded divisions already made and accepted by parties does not require registration. —1961 SCR 792.



7. Letter containing mere record of events leading to deposit of title deeds and not containing the terms of the mortgage transaction does not require registration. — Rajamma v Mahant P, Krishnanadagiri Goswamy and Others, 1973(2) Mys. L.J. 73.



8. When the award sought to effect a partition of the joint family properties, it requires registration under Section 17(b) of the Karnataka Registration Act.
A declaration of right, title or interest within the meaning of Section 17 of the Registration Act is not a statement of an existing state of affairs, but one from which a new right, title or interest directly flows. This is so because the word 'declare' in Section 17 must be read in the same sense as the words 'create, assign etc./ used in the same section, that is, as implying a definite change in the legal relationship of the parties to the property by an expression of Will embodied in the document. — 1962 Mys. L.J. Supp. 211.



9. Award between partners — Registration — Documents mentioned in Section 14(2) not filed — Effect — Filing award by partner authorised by arbitrator — Valid. A dispute between the petitioner and respondent who were running a rice mill was referred to arbitration and respondent filed the award into Court. The award valued the mill and the shares and directed that respondent should take up the management of the mill, that on account of appellant's investment be should be paid each year a sum for 10 years and be repaid the amount invested at the end of ten years and also if they agreed they could carry on the business jointly. The award did not contain any schedule of properties and did not allot any shares in immovable properties to either of the parties. Held: (1) The declaration of the value of the mill and of the shares of the partners were recitals setting out the existing facts and rights and such a declaration of mere facts will not bring the award within Section 17(l)(b), Registration Act and render it compulsorily registrable. Very serious consequences follow non-registration and such provisions should be strictly construed. Further an award when not merged in a judgment and decree cannot operate to create, declare, etc., any right, title or interest as contemplated in Section 17(l)(b). The mere fact that it may limit or even terminate the right of one of the partners will not be sufficient to bring the award within Section 17(l)(d). The interest of a partner in partnership assets cannot be regarded as a .right or interest in immovable property, within Section 17(l)(b) — AIR 1959 A,P. 380, foll. In dealing with the share of the partners the award cannot be understood as dealing with any right or interest in any immovable property forming part of the assets of the partnership. (2) Failure to file the documents referred to in Section 14(2), Arbitration Act along with the award did not vitiate the proceedings or render the filing of the award invalid or otherwise than in accordance with law. (3) It is not necessary that the arbitrators themselves should file the award in Court and under Section 14(2) the arbitrators could cause the award to be filed in Court. — Nagesh Venkat Rao Desai v Srinivasacharya Narayanacharya, 1966(1) Mys. L.J. 362.



10. Award of arbitrator relating immovable property — Held. Section 17(l)(b) of the Registration Act enjoins that any non-testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property should be registered. Therefore, the question is, does the document itself extinguish or purport to create or declares any right in immovable property. It certainly declares the share of the parties in the property but it enjoins that only upon payment of Rs. 40,800/- Mrs. Vasisht would vacate the house. It further enjoins that "she will be entitled to live in the house in the portion occupied by her till the full payment of Rs. 40,800/- is made to her and she will not be liable to pay any rent for the occupation of the portion and on the said payment, she will not have any right and also no interest left in the said property". So her right in the said property and her interest in the property ceases on payment of the amount of Rs. 40,800 and not otherwise, not by the operation of document itself. The document itself creates a right by itself to get Rs. 40,800 and right to obtain the payment and on payment the obligation of relinquishment of her right or interest in the property. It does nothing more. . . .In that view of the matter, though there is no dispute about the propositions, these two decisions would be applicable to the facts of the instant case, we are of the opinion on an analysis of the award that it did not create any right in any immovable property and as such it was not compulsory to register it. — Captain Ashok Kashyap v Mrs, Sudha Vasisht and Another, 1987(3) Kar. L.J. Sh. N. 15 , AIR 1987 SC 841.



11. Family arrangement — Unregistered — Effect.1974(1) Kar. L.J. Jr. 120 Sh. N. 296. Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, Rules 148 and 151 — Encumbrance Certificate — Application for removal of entries mentioned in — Sub-Registrar, not being competent to decide question of title, cannot entertain such application for deleting, modifying or altering entries relating to registered documents — Where person claiming ownership over immovable property finds that someone else has sold same property under registered sale deed, appropriate course of action for him is to file suit for declaration and consequential relief, or to ignore such sale deed and leave it to person claiming title there under to establish his title through appropriate proceedings — He cannot require registering authority to cancel registration of document. In detail: - Every document affecting an immovable property (as provided in Section 17) has to be registered, so that any person who wants to deal with such property can find out about the encumbrances, legal obligations, rights and ownership of such property; and such registration acts as constructive notice to a person who subsequently acquires such property or any part thereof, or share or interest therein. Every document so registered is copied (or copy filed) in Book I and particulars thereof (name of executant/s and claimant/s under the document and description of the property and nature of transaction and the consideration) are entered in the statutory Indexes I and II. When a person wants to ascertain whether any transactions have taken place in regard to an immovable property or the particulars of such transaction, he can either apply to the Registration Office to make a search or seek permission to personally inspect the Indexes. An Encumbrance Certificate or Nil Encumbrance Certificate, as the case may be, is issued by the Registration Office showing the result of such search. The Encumbrance Certificate or Nil Encumbrance Certificate issued is not a document of title or document affecting title to a property, but is only a list of the acts and encumbrances affecting an immovable property being copies of entries in Indexes, made on the basis of the documents registered and entered in Book I. The Registering Officer has no power or authority to modify or delete any entries made in Book I or in the Indexes relating to Book I, by holding an enquiry relating to the validity of the document. Consequently, he cannot delete or modify any entry made in an Encumbrance Certificate (except where it may relate to a clerical error). . . . When a person who claims to be the owner or a person interested in an immovable property, finds that someone else has executed and registered a sale deed or other deed in regard to his property, claiming to be the owner or a person interested in the property, the appropriate course for him is to file a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. If he is satisfied such sale deed is executed by a person without any title and that the deed is void ab initio, he may even choose to ignore the same and leave it to the person claiming title under such deed to establish his title in appropriate proceedings. A Court of Law has the jurisdiction to declare a document to be void or even cancel a document. But under no circumstances, a person claiming to be the owner of a property or a holder of a property, can require the Registering Authority to cancel the registration of a document or to cancel the entry made in Book No. 1 in regard to a registered document or to delete or remove the entry made in the indexes relating to Book No. 1. The Registering Officer has no such power. Consequently, the question of the Registering Officer deleting any entry either from the Indexes of Book No. 1 or the extracts therefrom contained in the Encumbrance Certificate by holding transaction covered by a registered instrument is illegal or void, does not arise. — M. Ramakrishna Reddy v Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore and Another, 1999(6) Kar. L.J. 68.







12. Partition deed — Declaring rights of different coparceners in detail signed and attested, requires registration. — Varde Gowda v Nanjundiah, 1971 Mys. L.J. Sh. N. 79.


13. While a surrender of a lease need not be in writing and registered, if it is in writing affecting immovable property of over Rs. 100 would require registration. — 1969(1) Mys. LJ. 203.




14. Where the award directed that the 1st party should obtain a release deed from the 2nd party on payment of a certain sum before a certain date, held the award did not itself operate as a conveyance in favour of the 1st party and did not require registration. — Gopala Gowda v Devegowda, 1974(2) Kar. L.J. Jr. 68 Sh. N. 52.



15. Security bond under Order 41, Rule 6, CPC — Registration. A security bond executed under Order 41, Rule 6, CPC mortgaging properties worth more than Rs. 100 is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(l)(b) of the Registration Act and it is exempt from registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. — S. Rarm Bhatta v B. Kodandamma Bhatta, ILR 1963 Mys. 536:1963(2) Mys. L.J. 253.






16. Mere list of properties allotted at partition cannot be construed as an instrument of partition — Registration is not required. — Roslian Singh and Others v Zile Singh and Others, 1988(1) Kar. L.J. Sh. N. 8 (SC): AIR 1988 SC 881.



17. Surrender by tenant to landlord — Registration —Right under — Exercise after repeal of section. Where the value of a tenancy is over Rs. 100, a surrender deed executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord comes within clause (b) of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act and must be registered. In view of Section 17(l)(b) and Section 49, the unregistered document cannot be received in evidence of the transaction of surrender affecting the property. A surrender can be effected without an instrument. But, if a surrender is effected by a document, the same must be registered. Even if a document is not admissible, the fact of surrender could be established by evidence de hors the document, that is, by other evidence. Nadig Neelakanta Rao v State of Mi/sore, AIR 1960 Mvs. 87 : "59 Mys. L.J. 905.



18. Unregistered partition deed — Evidentiary value of Such document is admissible in evidence to prove intention of coparceners to become divided in status.Such document is admissible to prove an intention of coparceners to become divided in status. The present document also may be used only for that purpose — Chikke Gowda and Another v L. Govinde Gowda, 2001(1) Kar. L.J. 194.



19. Document which effects partition of immovable properties worth more than Rs. 100/- inadmissible in evidence if the same is not registered under Section 17(l)(b) — Documents when contain several other matters which do not require to be registered;— Admissibility in evidence — Extent of —Stated:- The document is executed by defendants 1 and 3 and attested by three witnesses. It effects partition of the joint family properties in addition to moveables the immoveable properties, mentioned therein worth more than Rs. 100/- between defendants 1 and 3. As such, as required by Section 17(l)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, it ought to have been registered. Admittedly, the document Ex. D-l has not been registered. As such it could not have been considered as a valid document affecting immoveable properties mentioned therein and it could not have been received in evidence to prove the partition. However, the document contains several other matters which do not require to be registered. It contains the list of moveable and immoveable properties belonging to the joint family consisting of late Sri Govind Rao, father of defendant 1 and Plaintiffs and his brother Gunde Rao. It also contains a recital that late Govinda Rao and Gunde Rao (defendant 3) were the members of a Hindu joint family and they possessed moveable and immoveable properties of the joint family mentioned therein- It also contains a declaration of defendants 1 and 3 that they did not want to continue as members of the joint family. In other words, it contains the statement of defendants 1 and 3 to severance of their status as members of the joint family. A document containing these matters is not required to be registered. Defendants 1 and 3 have admitted the execution of Ex. D-l and the properties comprised therein as the joint family properties. The recitals contained in the document are not at all disputed by any one of them. As such, though the document Ex. D-l is inadmissible as evidence of partition effected between defendants 1 and 3, nevertheless it is admissible to prove that the properties mentioned therein are the joint family properties and the first defendant and the 3rd defendant, being the members of the joint family, were in possession of the joint family properties mentioned therein on the date of the document and they severed their status as members of the joint family on the date of the document and they are in possession of the properties mentioned therein. — Umakant Rao v Lalitabai and Others, 1988(2) Kar. L.J. 155 (DB): ILR1988 Kat. 2067 (DB).





20. Partition deed — Not registered — Admissibility—Partition means partition by metes and bounds and also severance in status. So far as severance in status is concerned, though it is recited in a document, such a document does not require registration and is admissible to show that there was a severance in status. — Mallappa Durgappa v Durgavva and Others, 1982(1) Kar. L.J. 246: AIR 1982 Kant. 214.



21. First respondent purchased certain items of properties through Court sale from liquidator of Bank-Second respondent had sold previously those items of properties by virtue of execution of decree to Bank-Second sale took place of those properties through execution decree from second respondent to appellant — Appellant challenged first sale — High Court held — Properties were under attachment — Registration not compulsory — Appellant does not get valid right to those properties since they have been already sold — Properties though not form part of schedule, would also become part of decree — Attached properties liable to be sold as integral part of decree — Held view of High Court correct in law. Held:- Here we are concerned with the question whether items 1 to 7 properties brought to sale in execution of decree in O.S. No. 95 of 1953 are a part of decree or order of the Court, relating to the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. We have already held that Items 1 to 7 of the properties mentioned in the separate application, which was the subject-matter of the attachment before the judgment, have become part of the decree and also the order of the Court in the proceedings under Order 38, Rule 6 of C.P.C. Therefore, the decree, though passed on compromise, formed part of the decree and order of the Court in Court proceedings. The immovable properties whose sale is impugned are not properties other than the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings. Therefore, the view of the High Court is correct in law. — S. Noordeen v V.S. Thiru Venkita Reddiar and Others, 1996(4) Kar. LJ. 710 (SC).



22. Sale of immovable property — Unregistered agreement to reconvey — Suit for specific performance. An agreement to reconvey does not require registration and is therefore admissible in evidence and a suit for specific performance can be founded on it. AIR 1926 Bom. 131 dist. — Narayanaswamy v Muniyamma, AIR 1974 Mys. 13 :1973(1) Mys. LJ. 310.


23. Exemption from registration — Decree or order of Court — Decree passed in suit for declaration of title and possession, on becoming final without being challenged in appeal, operates as res judicata, barring subsequent suit for similar relief by another party, irrespective of whether decree is registered or not — Where such decree passed in 1951 had become final, another decree passed subsequently in 1972 granting similar relief to another party, on ground that decree of 1951 was not registered, later decree of 1972, is a nullity — Court which passed decree in 1972 erred in not applying bar of res judicata. Held: The decree was passed on 10-12-1951. But unfortunately the First Appellate Court has failed to understand the validity of the decree so passed and held that the decree is not a registered one and the title has not passed through the plaintiff's mother. This is an erroneous approach. Declaration of a right in immoveable properties made in decree does not require registered instruments to convey the title. Registration of such decree is optional under the provision of the Registration Act.... It is unfortunate that the appellate Judge is not aware of the law on the point and held otherwise that effecting the rights of the plaintiff. This finding is therefore prima facie an error apparent on the face of record and such findings has to be set aside. In other subsequent suit after this suit namely, O.S. No. 156 of 1972 cannot operate as res judicata. In fact the plaintiff who is claiming through his mother is certainly entitled to the property. — Dhaesa (deceased) L.Rs v Bandagisab and Another, 2000(2) Kar. L.J. Sh. N. 20.



24. Compromise decree — Charge on other than subject-matter Unregistered — Priority over attachment.—If the immoveable property over which a charge was created by a compromise decree was not the subject-matter of the suit, the decree is not exempt from registration under Section 17(2){vi), Registration Act. The unregistered decree is ineffective insofar as it creates a charge and cannot take precedence over an attachment of the property. — Bhogilal v Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., 1968(1) Mys. L.J. 514.




25. Where all the properties of the firm including the suit property were by consent treated to be properties in the suit in which a compromise was made, such a decree does not require to be registered — Shivdas Subrao and Another v V.D. Divekar and Another, 1968(2) Mys. L.J. 111.



26. Compromise decree creating charge on immovable property in favour of any party to suit is compulsorily registrable unless amount secured is less than Rs. 100/- — Registration operates as constructive of charge, as contemplated in Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, to subsequent transferees. HELD: When a charge of immoveable property is created by an instrument such instrument must be registered unless the amount secured is less than Rs. 100/-.Registration of an instrument under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act to operate as a constructive notice contemplated under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act to the subsequent transferee, it must be shown that its registration was done strictly in the manner prescribed by the Registration Act and that the registered document was entered or filed, as the case may be, in the books kept under Section 51 of the Act, and that the particulars of the transaction under the registered deed were correctly entered in the indexes kept under Section 55. In the instant case sufficient evidence has been brought on record satisfactorily establishing the fact of due registration of the said decrees in the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar. — Sha Champalal Oswal v Pedalu Achanna and Another, 1998(1) Kar. L.J. 365A.


27. Tahsildar making the instrument of Partition — Nothing to show that the same is made in exercise of his powers under Chapter XI of Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation, 1899 — Held, requires registration. — M.S. Seethamma v M.K. Neelamma, 1987(2) Kar. L.J. Sh. N. 156: ILR 1985 Kar. 883.





28. Registration — Validity. Nittoor Sreenivasa Rao and Hegde, J J.—Before a document could be invalidated under Section 28, the party who wants to invalidate the same should establish that either the relevant property mentioned in the deed is non-existent or the same was not intended to be passed under the deed. What is contemplated in the latter case is not the fraud of the vendor alone but of all the parties to the transaction. The burden of proving that the vendor had no saleable interest in the property included in the deed or that the parties did not intend to transfer the same, is on the person alleging it. It is sufficient if the vendor had some saleable interest in the property, as on the date of sale. Subsequent events have no direct bearing on the question of validity of the registration. It is not the law that if the vendee fails to establish good title in the vendor the deed becomes invalid under Section 28. The crucial question is whether the parties to the deed did not intend to transfer the property. The intention of the vendees is of the utmost importance, because it is his intention that makes the transaction real or a make-believe one. — Annaji Vishnu v Balkrishna, R.A.B. Nos. 29 and 30/56, dated 14-8-1958.





29. whether sub-registrar can probe into validity or otherwise of the document tendered for registration? Held.—Section 34 of the Act lays down the nature of enquiry to be held by the Sub-Registrar before registering a document. It is quite patent that the Sub-Registrar is required to make an enquiry whether the document has really been executed by a person who purports to execute the document, and further as to the identity of the executant or his representative who appears before him. It is well-settled that the question as to the validity of the document is alien to such an enquiry. If the executant admits having executed a document, the Sub-Registrar must order registration of the document if presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the instant case undoubtedly the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar have exceeded their jurisdiction in pronouncing upon the validity of the sale deed by referring to the agreement of exchange said to have been reached between the parties. Such matters are undoubtedly beyond the scope of the enquiry contemplated under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar exceeded their jurisdiction in refusing to register the sale deed on such ground. — A.G. Shivalingappa (since deceased) by LRs. and Others v A.C. Shankarappa and Another, 1990(3) Kar. L.J. 408A : ILR 1991 Kar. 1804.




30. Sale deed — Registration — Document effective from date of execution. Held. — A plain reading of Section 47 of the Act, shows that a document becomes operative from the time of its execution and not from the time of its registration. Section 47 states from what date the document becomes operative and Section 75 states from what date the registration takes effect. — Rathnakar v H.S. Madhava Rao and Others, 1990<4)>

No comments:

KARNATAKA LAND LAWS