2019 (3) TMI 2021 - HC - Indian Laws

Refusal to register the second sale agreement - refusal on the ground that the earlier agreement is still in force - HELD THAT - This Court wanted to know from the learned Government Advocate that if there is any specific provision which enables the Sub Registrar of the Registration Department to deny registration in such cases. The learned Government Advocate brings it to my attention that a circular bearing No.18223/C1/2013-3 dated 08.11.2013 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, calling upon the Registering Authority to satisfy himself that there is no doubt on the title of the executant. But the said circular does not state that the Registering Authority should refuse registration if a prior agreement is still in force. The second respondent cannot deny registration of the petition mentioned document on the ground that the writ petitioner s earlier agreement with Ganesan has not been cancelled. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of registration of a sale agreement by the second respondent based on the existence of a prior agreement.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of registration of a sale agreement by the second respondent due to the existence of a prior agreement. The petitioner, holding a Power of Attorney for the property, entered into a sale agreement with an individual named Ganesan, duly registered in 2016. However, as Ganesan refused to fulfill his part of the agreement, the petitioner sought to enter into a new agreement with another party, presenting a sale agreement dated 2018 before the second respondent. The second respondent declined registration citing the continued validity of the earlier agreement with Ganesan.

The court examined the legal provisions and a circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, which emphasized the need for the Registering Authority to ensure the title of the executant without explicitly stating that registration should be refused if a prior agreement is still in force. Consequently, the court held that the second respondent lacked grounds to deny registration solely based on the existence of the previous agreement with Ganesan. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the second respondent to register the document, provided all other formalities are met.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of legal clarity and adherence to specific provisions when denying registration of documents based on prior agreements. It underscores the need for Registering Authorities to act within the scope of their authority and not refuse registration arbitrarily, especially when no explicit provision mandates such denial. The ruling ensures that the petitioner can proceed with the new sale agreement, emphasizing the significance of fulfilling all necessary formalities for registration.