Karnataka High Court

Sri. V Prasad vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024

Author: M. Nagaprasanna

Bench: M. Nagaprasanna

                           1



Reserved on : 19.02.2024
Pronounced on : 22.04.2024


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

         WRIT PETITION No.426 OF 2021 (GM - ST/RN)


BETWEEN:

SRI V.PRASAD
S/O LATE Y.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT GIDDAPPANAHALLI
SULIBELE POST
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.
                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
    SRI M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
     DEPARTMENT OF
     STAMPS AND REGISTRATION
     M.S.BUILDING
     DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                             2



2.   THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF
     REGISTRATION AND
     COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
     'KANDAYA BHAVANA'
     8TH FLOOR, K.G.ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 009.

3.   THE SUB-REGISTRAR
     MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
     HOSKOTE - 562 114
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.

4.   SRI MANU N.,
     S/O M.NAGARAJ
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     R/O NO.151, 'RUSTUMJI VILLAS'
     WHITEFIELD
     BENGALURU - 560 066.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3;
    SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
    SRI SOURABH R.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ABSOLUTE SALE DEED DTD.21.3.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-R;
DECLARE THAT THE ABSOLUTE SALE DEED DTD.21.3.2019 AS PER
ANNEXURE-R IS VOID AND NULLITY IN THE EYE OF LAW.



     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 19.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                   3



                                ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an

absolute sale deed dated 21-03-2019 by declaring it to be void and

a nullity in law.

2. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri Spoorthy Hedge, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri

D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent

No.4.

3. Facts, in brief germane are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be an owner in possession of landed

property comprising of Sy.Nos. 12, 13, 17, 18 and 74/2 of

Ekarajapura Village, HosakoteTaluk, Bengaluru Rural District

measuring 3 acres 13 guntas; 4 acres; 7 acres 12 guntas, 4 acres 7

guntas and 0.17 guntas respectively. It is the averment in the

petition that the properties were acquired by the ancestor of the

petitioner in terms of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

in exercise of his powers under the Mysore (Personal and

Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 as obtaining under

Section 10 of the said Act. The petitioner inherits those properties

and claims to be in possession of all the lands totally measuring 11

acres 19 guntas. The petitioner then applies for conversion of the

properties from agriculture to industrial purpose initially and further

from industrial to commercial purpose in terms of the provisions of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It appears that the Deputy

Commissioner accords permission for such conversion of lands in

terms of his order dated 13-10-2014. The conversion is granted for

the lands as observed hereinabove. The petitioner then applies for

sanction of a plan from the Planning Authority as a single layout

plan. Upon consideration of the application, the Planning Authority

appears to have sanctioned the plan on 22-05-2017 for the lands

mentioned hereinabove in terms of Section 15 of the Karnataka

Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.

4. After approval of the plan, the layout is said to have been

formed by the petitioner. Upon formation of the layout and

necessities being in place, the Planning Authority issues a

commencement certificate for the purpose of construction of a

commercial building for the purpose of establishment of a

warehouse on certain terms and conditions. The commencement

certificate is issued on 08-05-2018. After issuance of the

commencement certificate by the Planning Authority, further

permission is granted by the Village Panchayat of jurisdiction on

04-07-2018. The petitioner enters into a Joint Development

Agreement with the 4th respondent during the pendency of the

aforesaid orders being passed by the Planning Authority but after

the conversion that is granted by the Deputy Commissioner for the

afore-quoted lands. The Joint Development Agreement had some

conditions between the petitioner and the 4th respondent.

5. What has driven the petitioner to this Court is a Circular

issued by Government directing certain action by the registering

authorities. The Government on 06-04-2009 issues a Circular under

the Registration Act, 1908 for registering properties coming under

Gram Panchayats. One of the instructions in the Circular was

making of Form Nos. 1 and 12 compulsory for registration of non-

agricultural lands. This comes to be amended on 24-01-2013 to

bring the Circular within the requirements under the Karnataka

Panchayat Raj Rules, 2006. On 21-01-2014 the amendment was

issued amending the requirements for the purpose of identification

of a property prior to the said registration. On 18-07-2014 a

comprehensive Circular is issued by the Government directing the

Registering Authorities to act in terms of two websites - one

'E-Swathu' and the other 'Kaveri'. E-Swathu was for the purpose of

Gram Panchayats and Kaveri was for the purpose of Sub-Registrars.

It is after these Circulars conversion is granted for the lands

belonging to the petitioner.

6. The 4th respondent files a writ petition before this Court

challenging a particular endorsement declining to register a sale

deed and also calls in question the legality and correctness of the

Circulars issued by Government which brought in Kaveri and

E-Swathu. The petitioner is not a party to those proceedings. The

4th respondent/developer contends that what was called in question

was the validity of software rejecting the registration of sale deed,

but this Court did not deal with the question of validity of the sale

deed. The writ petition was allowed directing the 3rd respondent/

Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed by setting aside the

endorsement and ordering that Kaveri and E-Swathu must be

corrected bringing in line with the Registration Act, but did not

quash the Circular, as the matter was also pending before the Apex

Court. The petitioner herein had filed an impleading application

therein that comes to be rejected as the dispute between the

petitioner and the 4th respondent was with regard to their sharing in

the Joint Development Agreement, which had to be adjudicated

before the civil Court. Writ appeal was filed by the State against the

order passed in W.P.No.10582 of 2018. Writ Appeal was also filed

by the 4th respondent insofar as non-quashment of Circulars of

Government. The third writ appeal was filed by the petitioner

against the order declining to permit him to come into the

proceedings. Contempt petition was also filed by the 4th respondent

alleging non-compliance with the order dated 13-02-2019 passed in

Writ Petition No.10582 of 2018 in which the Sub-Registrar was

directed to register the sale deed. It is during the pendency of the

contempt petition, the Sub-Registrar registers the sale deed as

directed by this Court in the aforesaid petition. It is that act that

has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition

seeking quashment of the sale deed dated 21-03-2019 registered

during the pendency of writ appeals and contempt petition. After

registration of the sale deed, the writ appeal filed by the 4th

respondent is disposed of, as the order in the writ petition had been

complied with. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner also comes to

be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all

contentions in the event he would file a writ petition. The writ

appeal filed by the State also comes to be terminated on account of

implementation of the order passed by the learned single Judge.

The termination of three writ appeals and the action of registering

the sale deed is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition.

7. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for

the petitioner would vehemently contend that the 3rdrespondent is

not empowered to admit any document for registration in terms of

Joint Development Agreement. It is his specific contention that this

Court only permitted the 3rd respondent/ Sub-Registrar and the 4th

respondent to register a sale deed dated 05-02-2018 and not any

other sale deed as is done dated 21-03-2019. In effect, the learned

senior counsel would submit that the documents registered are in

blatant violation of court order and therefore, such registration

should be termed to be null and void. It is his emphatic submission

that the document registered is entirely different from what is

sought by the 4th respondent and he has played fraud before the

Registering Authority. Therefore, it warrants interference at the

hands of this Court.

8. Per-contra, the learned senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar

appearing for the 4th respondent would refute the submissions of

the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to contend that the

Sub-Registrar while registering the document has looked into what

was directed by the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.10582 of 2018 and

has registered the same. It is the submission of the learned senior

counsel that this Court nowhere prohibited the 3rd respondent from

registering any other document apart from the one mentioned in

the order. Therefore, there is no violation of the Court order. The

judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

deals with express prohibition to do a particular act. In the case at

hand, there is no express prohibition. It is his further submission

that two civil suits are pending against the petitioner, for providing

a forged sanctioned plan to the 4th respondent, to invest huge sums

of money to construct warehouses, which has caused huge loss.

The prayer of the petitioner, in effect, is seeking the relief of

declaration of specific performance in a writ proceeding. These have

to be adjudicated only before the civil Court is the submission of the

learned senior counsel.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused

the material on record.

10. The ownership of lands by the petitioner is a matter of

record. Those facts narrated hereinabove need not be gone into. It

would suffice if the story would be considered from the date of

conversion of the properties and entering into Joint Development

Agreement between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The Joint

Development Agreement and the sharing between the two is a

matter of record. Contending that the 4th respondent was entitled

for registration of a document placed before the Sub-Registrar and

the Sub-Registrar had not registered the document in the light of

two softwares that were implemented by a Circular dated

18-07-2014 had knocked at the doors of this Court in

W.P.No.10582 of 2018. The prayer sought in the writ petition was

to quash Circulars dated 18-07-2014 and 03-02-2014 to the extent

of the directions to the Officers of the Sub-Registrars. The writ

petition was disposed of by the following order:

".... .... ....

26. Petitioner had entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 16.12.2015 with the owners of the property bearing Sy.Nos.17 and 18 situated at Ekarajapura Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District for construction of warehouse. As per said agreement owners had to transfer 57% of said land to the petitioner in consideration of warehouse constructed in remaining 43% of land. A General Power of Attorney was also executed by owners in favour of petitioner. Subsequently the owners of the property in question leased 43% of their share namely, property fallen to their share under Joint Development Agreement, by executing a lease deed in favour of M/s.Fine Tech Corporation (P) Ltd., and presented the said lease deed dated 01.02.2018 for registration before fourth respondent, which came to be accepted without any objection. That apart, petitioner herein is also a signatory to the said lease deed as confirming party. In fact, Form No.11-B was also not presented along with said document and yet same came to be registered without any demur by fourth respondent. However, when petitioner, as registered Power of Attorney holder of proposed sixth respondent, presented a deed of conveyance i.e., sale deed dated 05.10.2018 for conveying 57% share in said property, impugned endorsement dated 05.02.2018 - Annexure-E came to be issued on the ground it is accompanied by Form No.11-B without previous transaction/electricity bills. Undisputedly, petitioner is possessing a power of attorney dated 16.12.2015 executed by proposed sixth respondent in respect of subject property, which is also duly registered, whereunder he

possess a right to execute the sale deed in respect of subject property which he has been authorised to deal with, as could be seen from clause 15 of the said power of attorney. It reads:

"15. To enter into Agreement, to convey or deed of conveyance, mortgage deed or any other deed as or required by him in respect of the Developer's 57% of the land in the schedule property along with the constructions therein and to collect and receive consideration and such other amounts immediately after completion of construction."

27. By virtue of powers vested, petitioner has presented the absolute sale deed dated 05.02.2018-Annexure-D for registration of the subject schedule property, which has also been duly converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes by the order of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru through O.M. dated 12.09.2013. In fact, a composite e-Khata No.150300400201400870 is issued in respect of subject property also. On presentation of aforesaid document, it has been returned on the ground that petitioner has enclosed Form No.11-B along with the sale deed and it is not accompanied by electricity bills.

28. The State has sought to rely upon the Circulars date 18.07.2014 and 03.02.2014 to substantiate the impugned endorsement dated 05.02.2018-Annexure-E. A bare reading of Circular dated 18.07.2014 would indicate that production of Form No.11-B would be compulsory for registration of non agricultural immovable properties and circular dated 03.02.2014 issued by fifth respondent would disclose that the jurisdictional Sub-Registrars have been directed as to the documents which can and cannot be accepted for the purposes of registration of the documents.

29. Rule 30 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Gram Panchayats Budgeting and Accounting) Rules, 2006, mandates demand and collection of taxes on land and buildings situated within the gram panchayat area. Form No.11-A reflects the assessment made in respect of a property for which a demand has been raised relating to vacant lands and Form No.11-B reflects the assessment made in respect of a property for which

demand has been raised relating to buildings constructed without authorization. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 30 reads as under:

"(7) The Gram Panchayat shall maintain in a separate register in Form 11-B, regarding assessment of taxes for buildings or vacant land or both including a building constructed in violation of the provisions of taxes for building rules or in an unauthorized layout or in a revenue land or a building occupied without issuance of occupancy or completion certificate except the building constructed illegally in Government land, and belonging to any local body, any statutory body or organization owned or controlled by the Government."

30. A bare reading of sub-rule (7) of Rule 30 would clearly indicate that a separate register in Form No.11-B, relating to assessment of tax for building or vacant land or both which has been constructed in violation of provisions of building rules, or such property being located in an unauthorized layout or in a revenue land, as morefully enumerated therein is required to be maintained. Thus, intention of the legislature which can be gathered from reading of sub-rule (7) of Rule 30 is to ensure that the property situated within the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat are developed in an orderly or authorized fashion and it is required for identification of such property. Thus, sub-rule (7) of Rule 30 will have to be read and understood for the purpose of which it has been enacted. Form No.11-B is also issued in respect of a vacant land or in other words, Gram Panchayat would maintain a separate register in Form No.11-B regarding assessment of taxes for vacant land independently. Though expression used in sub-rule (7) of Rule 30 namely the words "including a building constructed in violation of the provisions of taxes for building rules or in an unauthorized layout ........ completion certificate" at first blush would indicate that it applies to all vacant land falling with Gram Panchayat, it is not so. The vacant lands or building referred to therein refers to such property wherein the building has come-up unauthorisedly or in an unauthorized layout or in a revenue land etc. The different categories of building and land enumerated therein will have to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively.

31. In the instant case, the thrust of argument advanced by learned Government Advocate is that rejection of the sale-deed presented by the petitioner is on the ground that it is not accompanied by electricity bill of the building, which is one of the necessary ingredient of software developed by the State for registration of properties and sole intention of State is to ensure there is orderly development. Any software developed by the State or its agency will have to be necessarily in consonance with the provisions of the Act and to achieve the purpose of the Act and in aid of it. Any lacuna or deficiency in the software created by the State or its Authority contrary to the provisions of enactment, cannot stand the test of law. In the instant case, the State by a software relating to registration called 'Kaveri' and the software maintained by the Gram Panchayat Office called 'E-Swathu' has been integrated and is now called by name "Kaveri E-Swathu Integrated System". By virtue of same, the impugned circulars which are integrated into the said software, would automatically reject the document/s presented for registration in the event of property sought to be registered has not undergone previous transaction or does not have electricity bills for lack of identification of the property. Like in the case on hand, where the document relating to an immovable property which has been duly converted by the statutory authorities is accompanied by Form No.11-B when presented for registration, would automatically stand rejected for lack of said property not being the subject matter of earlier transaction and there being no electricity bill produced. This is not the purport and intent of either the impugned circulars or the mandate of registration laws.

32. As rightly contended by Sri. Sourabh R.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Form Nos.11-A and 11-B serve the purpose of identifying the property sought to be registered and creation of distinction between two Forms i.e., 11-A and 11-B and additional requirement that Form No.11-B properties must have undergone previous transactions or have electricity bills, is only to restrict and control the unauthorised development of vacant lands. Thus, the presentor of document will have to appear before the jurisdictional Gram Panchayat Authorities and seek their permission for registration of the document relating to immovable property though possessing Form No.11-B, which would suffice for registration. This exercise of calling upon the presentor to appear before a different

authority i.e., Gram Panchayat would amount to sub-delegation of the Authority vested with the Sub-Registrar. The Registration Act, 1908, does not empower the delegation of authority of the Registering Officer to the Gram Panchayat Authorities. Under the impugned circulars power of the Sub-Registrars has been entrusted to respective Gram Panchayats and same is not permissible under the provisions of Act. In fact, plain reading of Section 21 of the Registration Act would disclose that authority to identify the properties before registration is vested with the Registering Officer and said Officer would not be empowered to sub-delegate the authority to Gram Panchayat and as such, entrustment of said responsibility by the Sub-Registrar to any other Authority, would be contrary to Section 21 of the Registration Act.

33. Though impugned circulars for the reasons stated are liable to be quashed, it is not done so for the simple reason that, earlier notification dated 06.04.2009 issued on similar lines, which has been quashed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.18939/2009 and connected matter on 18.03.2016- Annexure-L, same is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Even otherwise, software in question, which is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, can be brought in line with the same, keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and proceed to register the documents accordingly.

For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

(ii) "Kaveri E-Swathu Integration System" software is ordered to be brought in line with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and Karnataka Registration Rules, 1961, by keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.

(iii) Endorsement dated 05.02.2018-Annexure-E, is hereby quashed.

(iv) Fourth respondent is directed to register the Absolute sale deed dated 05.02.2018-Annexure-D

presented by the petitioner forthwith by collecting registration fee and such other fee, as admissible including the additional stamp duty, if any.

(v) I.A.No.1/2018 filed by applicant for impleading is hereby dismissed.

(vi) No order as to costs."

The writ petition was allowed in part. Both the softwares brought in

by Circular as aforesaid, were directed to be brought in line with the

Registration Act and the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1961

keeping in mind the observations made in the order. The

endorsement declining to register the sale deed comes to be

quashed. The Sub-Registrar, 4th respondent therein was directed to

therein by collecting appropriate fee. What is presented for

registration is not the sale deed that the Court directed to be

registered, but a sale deed dated 21-03-2019, which was after the

order that was passed on 13-02-2019. The sale deed comes to be

registered by the Registering Authority. In the interregnum, three

writ appeals emerge by three parties as afore noticed.

11. During the pendency of writ appeals, contempt petition

was filed by the 4th respondent herein seeking action for non-

compliance with the order passed supra. The sale deed dated 21-

03-2019 comes up for registration during the pendency of the

proceedings in three writ appeals and contempt petition before the

Division Bench. The writ appeals come to be disposed of on the

ground that the order of the learned single Judge has been

complied with and nothing survives for further consideration. The

petitioner herein had also preferred a writ appeal. The writ appeal

preferred by the petitioner was against the order of the learned

single Judge declining to entertain an impleading application filed

by the petitioner in the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent. The

defence of the 4th respondent is that the petitioner was not a

necessary party, as what was challenged was only the Government

Circular and not any other action.

12. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner in Writ Appeal

No.679 of 2020 against the said order passed by the leaned single

Judge comes up for consideration on 28-02-2023 and the writ

appeal is disposed of by the following order:

"Mr.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel for Sri.H.N.Basavaraju, learned counsel for appellant.

Mr.B.Rajendra Prasad, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 to 6.

Mr.Sourabh R.Kurubarahalli, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. This intra Court appeal has been filed against order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 has been allowed in part.

3. Learned Senior counsel for appellant submits that he had filed an application seeking impleadment of respondent No.6 in writ petition, which was declined by the learned Single Judge. However, learned Senior counsel for appellant has invited attention of this Court to a memo which was filed on behalf of appellant seeking disposal of the appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. From the perusal of the memo, it is evident that learned Single Judge has directed the concerned Sub Registrar to register the instrument dated 05.02.2018. It is the case of the appellant that all together a different instrument was presented for registration by respondent No.1 and the same was registered. It is also contended that aforesaid action of the Sub Registrar is the subject matter of W.P.No.426/2021, which is pending and the appellant be granted liberty to raise all the contentions, which may be filed in such a writ petition.

6. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the parties to raise all such contentions as may be permissible in law to be raised in W.P.No.426/2021.

With the aforesaid liberty, appeal is disposed of."

The contention was recorded that the learned single Judge has

directed to register the instrument dated 05-02-2018 and

altogether different instrument is presented for registration. The

writ appeal was disposed of reserving liberty to the parties to

pursue the subject writ petition as by then the petitioner had

already preferred the subject petition. The submission of the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the 4th respondent has

played fraud by getting registered a different sale deed is contrary

to the facts. A perusal at the sale deed dated 5-02-2018 or the sale

deed that is now registered relate to the same sharing of the Joint

Development Agreement. Any further observation with regard to

the veracity would come in the way of pending proceedings before

the civil Court between the parties. Suffice it to state that the

judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned senior counsel

Sri Udaya Holla in the case of MANOHAR LAL v. UGRASEN1 would

not be applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand. The

Apex Court in the said judgment has held as follows:

".... .... ....

24. In Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj [AIR 1967 SC 1386] this Court considered the effect of action taken subsequent

(2010) 11 SCC 557

to passing of an interim order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience of the order passed by the Court would be illegal. Subsequent action would be a nullity.

25. In Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh [(1995) 6 SCC 50 : AIR 1966 SC 135] , this Court while dealing with the similar issue held as under : (SCC p. 52, para 4)

"4. ... In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the court orders otherwise. The court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes."

26. In All Bengal Excise Licensees' Assn. v. Raghabendra Singh [(2007) 11 SCC 374 : AIR 2007 SC 1386] this Court held as under : (SCC p. 387, para 28)

"28. ... a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof. ... the wrong perpetrated by the respondent contemnors in utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good."

27. In DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 622 : AIR 1966 SC 2005] this Court after making reference to many of the earlier judgments held : (SCC p. 636, para 18)

"18. ... '... on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them.' [Ed. : As observed in Clarke v. Chadburn, (1985) 1 WLR 78, p. 81 C.] "

28. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund [(2007) 13 SCC 565 : AIR 2008 SC 901] this Court while dealing with the similar issues held that even a court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the event of coming to the conclusion

that a breach of an order of restraint had taken place, may bring back the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction has not been violated."

The Apex Court was considering the act of the Registering Authority

which had registered a document when the Court had prohibited

such registration. In the case at hand, this Court had permitted

registration. What is registered is a sale deed of a different date.

The Court nowhere directed that only the said sale deed should be

registered. Therefore, the contention that the sale deed should be

annulled on the score that it is contrary to the order passed by this

Court is untenable, more so, in the light of the fact that several civil

proceedings are pending between the parties before the civil Court.

Therefore, I decline to entertain the prayer for quashment of the

sale deed in the aforesaid circumstance, leaving it open to the

warring parties to either file a civil suit or pursue the prayer in the