In this present matter the main dispute is regarding the property which comprises of approximately 4500 square ft. of land in a village by the name of Hittanahalli Koppalu in Malavallu Taluk in the State of Karnataka. This property was allotted to one Gende Veeregowdana Nathegowda under a village shifting scheme. The appellant (plaintiff before the trial court) claimed that an agreement for sale was executed on 10th April, 1981 between the plaintiff and Madegowda son of the original allottee Gende Veeregowdana Nathegowda in respect of the same property, which was followed by execution of a deed of sale on 28th May 1981. Madegowda was originally impleaded as defendant No.1.The Legal representatives of one Manchegowda (since deceased), contested the claim of ownership of the plaintiff over the subject- property. Said Manchegowda was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. The appellant (Plaintiff before the trial court) filed a suit which was instituted on 31st March 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Malavalli. The plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property and enjoyment thereof. The plaintiff contended that he had come in possession of the subject property initially as a tenant and subsequently as the purchaser thereof.
Decision of Trial Court:
The Trial Court sustained the plaintiff’s case primarily on the ground that the sale deed through which legal representatives of Manchegowda staked their claim over the property was not genuine. The Trial Court found that Manchegowda, as a purchaser was not present at the time of execution of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar and on that count the aforesaid finding was rendered by the Trial Court and first Appellate Court.
The High Court Decision:
The legal representatives of Manchegowda filed an appeal before High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court over ruled the judgment of the lower court and observed that: “the presence of the purchaser is not required when the document is presented for registration before the SubRegistrar. The Trial Court has failed to take note of the aforesaid provision of law of the Registration Act and has erred in holding that merely because the defendant was not present the sale deed in his favour cannot be taken as valid in law.”
Supreme Court decision:
To be able to the adjudicate in the aforementioned matter, the Court examines the section 32 of the Registration Act and answer the question that whether the presence of a purchaser of immovable property is necessary before the concerned authority under the Act at the time of effecting a registration of a deed of sale in accordance with the Act. The Court observed that the deed was executed by Madegowda and that aspect has not been disputed. The deed in question does not fall within Sections 31, 88 and 89 of the Registration Act. Section 32 of the said Act does not require presence of both parties to a deed of sale when the same is presented for registration. The Court has dismissed the appeal and held the presence of both the parties to the deed of sale is not necessary before the concerned authority at the time of registration of the same.
Case details:
Case title: H.P.Puttaswamy Vs. Thimmamma & Ors.
Order Date: 24th January, 2020
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
