On 10th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Asha Money, held that unless the Sale Deeds is duly signed, sealed and dated by the Registering Authority under Section 60, the transfer of title will not have taken place. It is also held that if a Sale Deeds had been presented before the Sub-Registrar and the Sub-Registrar had proceeded to start the process of registering them, in the absence of the Certificate of registration, the transfer has not been completed.

Facts of the case:

Six petitions had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 25th September, 2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Trial Court, allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by each of the plaintiffs before it respectively, who are the respective respondent No.1 in each of the petitions before this Court. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein is not a party to the suits. However, he is aggrieved because according to him, the impugned orders affect his rights to the extent of 75% of the undivided share in the property bearing House No. 45, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

Contention of the petitioner:

Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned senior counsel for the petitioner made the following contention:

  1. The respondents No.2 to 5/defendants No.1 to 4 had become owners of 25% undivided share each in the Suit Property.
  2. It was submitted that the suits were filed for Specific Performance of Agreements to Sell, alleging that respondent No.2/defendant No.1, had transferred various flats to the plaintiffs in the suits, being respondent No.1 in each of the present petitions.
  3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that in the absence of registered documents, the respondent No.1/plaintiff in each of the petitions had no right in the Suit Property.
  4. It was also submitted that subsequently, respondents No.4 and 5/defendants No.3 and 4 sold their 25% share each in the Suit Property in favour of the petitioner vide registered Sale Deeds dated 28th August, 2020.
  5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that by means of these suits, the respondent No.1/plaintiff in each of the petitions, were seeking to fasten other defendants with the burden of compensating them, as the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 was absconding.
  6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order could not be sustained, as the law did not permit stay of registration of a document.

Contention of the respondent:

Mr. Surinder Singh Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent made the following contention:

  1. It was submitted that the respondent No.1/plaintiff in each of the petitions had never at any point of time, conceded the claim of the petitioner to the complete ownership of the Suit Property.
  2. It was also contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petitions, as he was not a party before the learned Trial Court.
  3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiffs, the documents filed by the petitioner itself reveal that they have not been registered.
  4. It was also submitted that there was no jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and therefore the present petitions were not maintainable.

Observation and judgment of the court:

The Hon’ble bench of the court made the following submission:

  1. It was submitted that the questions of what consideration was paid or against whom the relief as claimed in the plaint can be granted, are not questions that need to be considered by this Court at this stage.
  2. The registration of a document is completed when the Certificate of registration is issued under Section 60.
  3. It was thus apparent that while the Sale Deeds had been presented before the Sub-Registrar and the Sub-Registrar had proceeded to start the process of registering them, in the absence of the Certificate of registration, the transfer has not been completed.

Thus, the court could not find any error in the impugned orders insofar as it has restrained the Sub-Registrar from proceeding further in the matter of registration of the Sale Deeds as it is but a necessary.

Thus, the petition was filed dismissed finding no merit.

Picture Source :

 
Anusree