MRS. MARY JOYCE POONACHA versus MIS K.T. PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 19-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
MRS. MARY JOYCE POONACHA 
v. 
MIS K.T. PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. 
JANUARY 19, 1995 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Registration Act, 190~Sections 34(3), 72 & 73-Registration-Sale 
deed for land-Executant not present at time of registration-Execution of sale 
deed in controversy-Civil suit pending-Registration refused-Appeal-Prayer 
A 
B 
to stay proceedings-Whether Registrar was right in proceeding with hearing C 
of appeaHfeld, No. 
One D had allegedly executed a sale deed but the same was not 
registered. Respondent filed a civil suit for. declaration that the said sale 
deed executed by D in his favour was valid and binding on her. The alleged 
executant D denied the execution of the-sale deed and the agreements to D 
sell in favour of the respondent No. 1. She alleged that the agreements and 
deed of sale were initiated by fraud and were unenforceable in the eye of 
law. 
The Sub-Registrar refused to register the document. On appeal, E 
when the Registrar was proceeding to hear the appeal to register the 
document, the appellant sought for stay of further proceedings in view of 
the pendency of the suit. The Registrar declined to stay the proceedings. 
The appellant filed writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. 
Writ Appeal filed against the judgment was also dismissed. Hence this 
Appeal. 
The question raised for consideration was whether the District 
Registrar was right in proceeding with the hearing of the appeal and 
whether the High Court was right in declining to stay the proceedings 
F 
before the District Registrar. 
G 
Allowed the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : 1.1. Under Ss. 72 and 73 of the Registration Act, undoub-
tedly, the existence of the power of the Registrar to proceed with the appeal 
is not disputed and cannot be disputed. But the question is of the H 
491 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 1 S.C.R. 
.. 
A 
p~opriety and justness of the exercise of the power; whether he was right 
in his exercise of discretion to proceed with the hearing of the appeal. 
---
When the executant had denied the execution of the alleged sale deed and 
passing of the consideration and the dispute when was pending trial in the 
" 
civil suit filed by the alleged vendee itself, the appropriate course should 
B 
have been that the Registrar should have stayed his hands and directed 
the plaintiff to obtain appropriate direction from the Civil Court or a 
decree. When the appellant approached the High Court, the High Court 
also should have directed the Civil Judge to dispose of the suit. Then the 
~ 
Registrar should have heard the appeal. Instead, the High Court dis-
--
missed the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. Therefore, the orders of the 
c High Court are set aside. The District Registrar shall not proceed further 
with the hearing of the matter till the civil suit is disposed of. (495-A-D] 
1.2 When execution of sale deed is in controversy and is subject 
matter of a suit, s.77(2) lifts the bar of s.49(3) and enables the court to 
D 
look into the document for adjudicating the controversy. In these cir-
cumstances, the trial court is directed to look into the document only for 
__ ..... 
the limited purpose of finding out whether D had executed the impugned 
sale deed alleged to have been executed by her and not for any other 
purpose. (495-F-G] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3094 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.94 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W!A. No. 2667 of 1993. 
x-\.. 
F 
P.C. Jain, S.K. Kulkarni, Jayavittal Kolar, D.L.N. Rao, Shankar 
.. 
Narayanan and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, (N.P.) for the Appellant. 
R.F. Nariman, Eshwarappa, Nangin Reddy, J.B. Dadachanji, 
S.Sukumaran and P.D. Tyagi for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on either side at length. This appeal by 
special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court 
H of Karnataka, dated 22.6.1994 made in W.A.No. 2667/93. 
M.J. POONACHAv. K.T. PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. 
493 
The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under : 
A 
One Devika Rani had allegedly executed an agreement on July 30, 
1991 and supplemental agreement on September 21, 1991 respectively to 
sell 223 acres of land in Tataguni Estates on the outskirts of Banglore City. 
It had been claimed that in furtherance thereof she had executed a sale 
deed, said to be on 16.2.1992 but the same was not registered. Respondent B 
N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.