IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE j' % V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE "
CIVIL REVISION PETITION 1Vf0~4/5I{ 'OE[20 (}9
BETWEEN:
SMT.C.S.GANGAMMA,
Aged about 67 Years,
D/O Channappa and V
W/Oiate Puttaswamy,' I _ -
R/at Chikkenahlli R "
Kasaba Hobli, V »
Chennapatna T aluk.--;j_57i :30 ._ °
RAMANAGARAM A:1}IS'I'RIC'E, ' .. PETITIONER.
(By sn.N.s1IIiab;s.OIsI;as£§fy>,:%Aé§r;R} []" %
AND:
' """" ~ "
S'/O Eats-., Subbeggwda,
Dead by I _ '_.
3} sM§'.JAYAEIMA,
Agekiabotit 56 Years,
W/O lat': Puttaramaiah.
Ab)
Aged about 27 Years,
% S/O Iate Puttaramaiah.
W
c) SMi'.SAVI'i'HA,
Aged about 24 Years,
D / 0 late Puttaramaiah.
d) SRLRAGHU,
Aged about 22 Years,
D/o late Puttaramaiah.
All are R/at Chikkenahalli
Village, Kasaba Hobli, .
Chennapatna Tq. 571 50}, '
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
(Respondents -- Served)''~~,, 22 X 2
s=_=s=_'=s=VM__<..--'W'::.-_"=::_._V!,:%" J'
This p€titi0'1f13__.:i4S':«:fiied ilifltiéii of the Code of
Civil Procedure; .e"§§;*:;1ejigf1:§se1<;.t and Order dated
12. 12.2008 No;-4-.6/E2008 on the file of the
Additional} Rsmanagara, dismissing the
Execution Petition.
petition.» on Fina} Hearing this day, the
CC-iirt _fl1f3 ~fC1l0WH1g2
O R D E R
Thisz is«;_Decree Ho1der’s revision ehaflenging the order
Execution Petition filed by him in Ex. Case
“fj-No.;4A6′;/2(i06 on the fie of Additiona} Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
2′ fiiariiiainagara, by an order dated 12.12.2008.
V1
2. The facts leading to this revision petition are as nnder: %
The petitioner herein is purchaser of an extent oi”Vl.:”‘acre
of agricultural land in Sy.No.80/1 of Chikkenah’alli ~
Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, £1-‘()”I”I’r~«0I1€l_! ll
S/o late Subbegowda under a Sale Deeci-ldated’
Initially, the said land was mortgaggedito the..DecreeVVl’i;lo’lCier by ‘V D
Puttaramaiah for a loan ori”’09:lO.1991.
Thereafter Puttararnaiah land as he
was in need of i”tinds_:’to loan of Decree
Holder herein necessity. At that
tilfifia Decree Holder, who
agreed to valuable consideration of
lu:Ai”ter adjtistirig the mortgage loan of
sale consideration, the Decree
sale consideration of Rs.E-30,000/- to
the
Oyffireeeipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/~
Puttaramaiah executed the Sale Deed of aforesaid
W.
land in the presence of attesting witness and presented the
Sale Deed for registration in the office of j11risdiction,:3dV_:Si1t)w
Registrar. However, before said Sale Deed could i.
Puttararnaiah went out of the Sub–RegistrarMoftiee» o’n,4_’the_ ”
pretext that one of his child is uriwelir
came back and the document “~~con\}eya1’ir;e “Was ” V
executed and presented for:”regist.i’atio_i1 kefip’t~per1Eding for
registration.
4. Thereaftelj. 2 ‘bit:hdthewpetitioner seeking
completion the Sub~–RegistJ:ar
refused to against which an appeal
was filed by _LiecVre.e’a herein in R.A.No.19/1996-97
hefore Bangalore, under Section 13 of
the During the pendency of the said appeal,
‘ ” ,..,,._,.;;1qe iVSaIe Deed, Puttaramaiah died and his wife
:.ar1d..,chiidrerii’r:aIrie on record. The said appeal filed before the
‘Registrar, was dismissed on 20.05.2002 holding that
‘under the Indian Registration Act, two witnesses are required
‘*1
to prove the execution of the Sale Deed. Since the plaintiff’
exainined only one witness, appeal came to be disniitssed. on
that ground. Thereafter the Decree Holder hereiraiiied ~
in O.S.No.1{)3/2002 on the {He of Addirtionat’V’C’i€%iiV”‘Jddge._V A’
(Sr.Dn.). Ramanagara, for the relief
defendant Puttaramaiah, owner schedu1e”:..;v’p’roperty ” V
executed a sale deed 8,.r7′.’ 2nd
defendant Sub-Registrar -‘deed on even
date, for permanent’ 1(a) to
1(d) from and enjoyment of
the suit ‘ d I
5. The decreed by Judgment and
Decree iO’.’20,Q_5.vpursuant to which the petitioner
heieinfiied Petition in Ex.No.46/2006 on the tile of
Judge (Sr.Dn..), Ramanagara, seeking
.:h_i’e’.:«,d_j4rection the second respondent to complete the
{~.’.vVV’1’egid.§trati”on formality of the Sale Deed dated 08.07.1993
. ‘V:a’Vie§te’eut§,ed by Puttaramaiah in her favour.
‘Wk
6. in the said execution proceedings, the respondents
entered appearance and raised an objection that.”~.1inder
Section 77 of the Registration Act, the Decree ~
present the document before the jurisdicti.ona1′ Va
for cornpieting registration fonnality 3:0
date of decree in the original suit, \i5V.f3r”:f1_Ch._t:1’i(:3 Siaieiifieed ” V
cannot be registered and Decree eicecution
proceedings. Since the petitioner to present the
Sale Deed for time, the
execution petition and the same should
be dismissed.
7. In the petitioner herein who is the
Decree H_;o1der contended that the failure to present the
days of the Decree for completion of
registration is procedurai in nature and on that
Vmground it’se1f,.pV.tI’1e Court cannot refuse to enforce the decree
c is–secured by her. In support of the said submission
upon the Judgment of this Court reported in
‘M
2003(1) KAR.L.J. 441 in the matter of Anjinamma ‘and
another Vs. Puttahariyappa and Others, whereiv’nV_j:’
Court has held as under:
“REGISTRATION ACT, ;1<3"08«,. tsemanir
77(1) – Registration of document I}'ecrei5MO:f
Court for – Delay in preseiifgng do_cument ' _
registration within 30 days», decree 'due, to '
delay attributable to both _C_og'ur_t' party –_3
Party, held, cannot..4bje depr';T.ved._V_of'benefit of
decree M Registering .Authority._ to
register docu_1n.ent.'fr"" – if ' " 'V
8. The exec11§tix11g'<_"';a_'3Vhot,i1't through the same,
opined thatgsuchiri condonirig the delay can be
taken only by not by Executing Court,
with this._§'gobservationV,V Exvecution Cg-1,11-t has dismissed the
the same the petitioner has filed this
* revision ' petition; ._ ' "V
In thisfpetition, though the respondents were duly
setiied, _they remained unrepresented.
W2.
10. Heard the counsel for petitioner. Perused the impugned
order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Executing
Execution Case No.46/ 2006 and also the ~
Decree dated 26.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.1f-.53’/”2t)O2′;”‘ ffi§_he0_ ”
operative portion of the Judgment is as”untler:
‘The suit of the })1ajntiii?i.is’–rdec1;ee–d§ it
The plaintiff is declared the purchaser
of the suit schedule property. ?»i.5i?11e5d;efer1dai’1ts are
directed to execute ‘-t.he’f ‘V sale, d;ee(_i dated
08.07.1993. E’aiii11g;’txfi1izii:-. “t.tjie_ dfeferldant No.2
shaft proceed toi;1jegist_ergt1*ie decumeritfi
The ciefendantsif “restrained from
iiiterfeiirig pla;i;ifI»tii*i7_s possession and enjoyment
of suit schetiu-!:e_property? _ ~
to ‘the cLjcu’r’ristar1ces arising in the
case, I directvthe-pa:fties~”to bear their own costs.
Draw up ‘pre.1.i.n1inary decree accordingly.”
ii. ‘the operative portion of the Judgment in
clearly discloses that the Trial Court after
.:¢:lcorrs:ide1″.i;iglVthe entire pleadings of the parties, evidence on
l”.”:..,_re(§er€1§,’has decreed the suit declaring that the petitioner
(plaintiff in the said suit) is the purchaser of suit
‘~”*\
schedule property with a direction to defendant, Nos.i(a} to
Md}, i.e., widow and children of late Puttaramaiah to evzetztilte
the Saie Deed dated 08.07.1993 and to register a.
favour of plaintiff, i.e., petitioner l1erei;r.:,»tt»o»nly ‘Al’
to do so, there is direction to defendariyt
register the said document. Thereiore, there’arVe.:ti?zfo””reliefs ” V
granted in favour of plaintiffi one is to} get the
Saie Deed executed by legalaheirsll in respect
of the suit schedrileiepfroperty l is direction to
defendant Channapatna, to
register the l
12. AdInittedly«._.the and Decree dated 26.10.2005
passed on the file of Additional Civil
JuVdge.~~V(ASr.Dn:.’j,liiamanagara, is not challenged by the said.
i l5….lega.l of thereby the said Judgment
»_.’_jarid._Decree_has become final and the declaration passed in
suit that plaintiff is the purchaser of suit schedule
lidproperty has become final, so also the direction issued to the
W
12
have to be presented within 30 days from
the date of decree, hence same is barred by
time and issued an endorsement to the effect
on 18.3.2002 itself, the copy of the same ‘
herewith produced and marked as Annexu.re– f; .,
C accompany this writ petition, no V L”
opportunity offered to the petitioners before. ”
issuing ofimpugned endorsementf’ ~. -. ‘
6. Further, in vieWtlof~i.1aw Aiaid
the Patna High Court in the°aforesaid’.case: arid
by careful reading of,—Section—-‘Z’7–of-the Act,.,,tt,,.is
clear that, prescripticui; of-:30. tinrie in the
above provision for presenting the”dor;ument for
its registration rafter ob.i.air1in.g the”‘vdee’ifee before
the Civil cou_ri«is”-a piroeedi11’ai”~a’s.peCt:which has
to be vieweg1i._1en;ie’ri’t1y”to see that ‘j’..iS’ti’C€ shall not
suffer. The Apex” ‘Case’ of Shreenath
and Another V iiiaje-sh–. Others, at paragraph
3 after interpiretiri-g*Or£iA€r 21,””Ri1Ies 97(1) and (2),
101, :39,_lO0’ar1.d”’10’3,Vas_ they stood p1’101′ to the
1976 Ameridmerit.a11(t-also Rules 35 and 36 of
the ru1es»,h,as siiccirictiyglaid down the law which
reads thus.» ” ‘ ”
“In interpi’etin_o* arty procedural law, where
more tha’n_o’n.e interpretation is possible, the
whteh-cit’: tails” ti:g’j.. procedure without
justice Tf—to5= be adopted. The
‘procediiral law is’ always subservient to and
ofjustice: Any interpretation which
elac’i’es’~-or frxistrates the recipient of justice is
rum
Executing Court has failed to look into the matter in right
perspective and has misdirected itself to hold
Execution Petition is not maintairiabie. in the ~
order dated 12.12.2008 passed by t.he.Add.itio1’ia10V’Ci£f;1V’Jtidge-._ ‘Au
(Sr.Dn.), Ramanagara, in Execution
set aside and the matter is f€iI1~?i1}dBd Estecutmg ” 0′
Court, with a direction to pass (}irecti11g the
Sub-Registrar, Channapatna’ Deed dated
08.07.1993 execute'(3EVLLi:;y in favour of
petitioner hereiirii from the date of
presentation of S1ib¥Registrar, after
completion of registratiofi’-fonna1:fity?’rv .. ., ~ « it ~’
With4.–th_ese o1:iserV’at.i.oIis”,~«the revision petition is ailowed,
without — order as -to’ _
ss,/F
Iusss