Orissa High Court
Diptimayee Pattnaik vs State Of Odisha & Others ........... ... on 23 July, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.12474 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Diptimayee Pattnaik ............. Petitioner
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others ........... Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.C.Panda, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, S.C.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 01.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.07.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner
against the Opposite Parties praying for directing the Sub-
Registrar Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to entertain the deed for sale
under Annexure-3 for registration, as, the Sub-Registrar
Athagarh (O.P. No.3) refused to entertain the said Annexure-3 on
the ground that, in the E.C. in respect of the properties covered
under that Annexure-3, there is reflection about an agreement
dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-2) for sale by the Petitioner in favour
of one Sankarsan Mohanty and unless the Annexure-2 is
cancelled, he (Sub-Registrar Athagarh, O.P. No.3) cannot
entertain the Annexure-3 for registration.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite
Parties.
3. According to the rival submissions of the learned counsels
of both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is :-
whether the refusal of the Sub-Registrar Athagarh (O.P.
No.3) to entertain the deed for sale under Annexure-3
executed by the Petitioner and her co-owners in favour of
Samarendra Pattnaik on the ground of reflection in the E.C.
about the execution of an agreement for sell dated
03.03.2023 (Annexxure-2) in respect of the properties covered
under Annexure-3 by the Petitioner in favour of the
Sankarsan Mohanty is sustainable under law?
4. The legal effect of an agreement to sell like Annexure-2 has
been clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio
of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Rambhau Namdeo Gajre Vrs.
Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (dead) through LRs. reported in
(2004) 8 S.C.C. 614 in Para No.13 that,
the agreement to sell does not create an interest of the
proposed vendee in the suit property.
(ii) In a case between Mahaaj Singh and others Vrs.
Karan Singh (dead) through LRs and others reported in 2024
(4) Civ.C.C. (S.C.) 214 in Para No.17 that,
In view of Section 54 of the TP Act, an agreement for sale
does not transfer the property subject matter of the agreement to
the purchaser. It does not create any interest in the property
subject matter of the agreement.
(iii) In a case between Allada Satyanarayana and others
Vrs. Kosaraju Sobhanamjali and others reported in 2024 (3)
C.C.C. 322 (Andhra Pradesh) in Para No.37 that,
the agreement to sell does not create any interest of the
proposed vendee in the suit schedule property involved in that
agreement.
(iv) In a case between Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Vrs. State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 2012
(S.C.) 206 in Para No.11 that,
transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be
by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of
conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no
right, title or interest in an immovable property can be
transferred.
5. When, as per the ratio of the above decisions, it is clarified
propositions of law that, an agreement to sell does not create an
interest in favour of the proposed buyer, for which, as per law,
the agreement to sell vide Annexure-2 cannot be a bar under law
for registration of the deed for sale executed by the owners of the
properties in respect of the properties involved in the agreement
like Annexure-2 in favour of a person other than the proposed
buyer.
6. When, there will be an agreement to sell like Annexure-2
executed by the vendor in favour of a person other than the
proposed vendee in the deed for sale and when such agreement to
sell is reflected in the E.C. in respect of the properties to be sold,
then at this juncture, a question arises, whether any Sub-
Registrar like the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) can refuse
to entertain the deed for sale for registration on the ground of
reflection in the E.C. in respect of the properties covered under
the said deed for sale, when the owner sells their properties to
another person other than the proposed vendee in the agreement
to sell like Anneuxre-2.
7. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of the following
decisions:-
(i) In a case between Arun Kumar Chourasia Vrs. The
State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 (1) Civ.C.C.
Patna 248 in Para No.9 that,
If the transferor does not have any title or has an
imperfect title to the property, the transferee on transfer will
either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to
the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to the
registering authority. The registering authority is bound to
register it.
(ii) In a case between Kailash and others Vrs. The Sub-
Registrar of Assurances, Indore and another reported in AIR
1985 Madhya Pradesh 12 in Para No.15 that,
It is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to register the document
in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, when
presented and when the duty is to be discharged in accordance
with law, it necessarily excludes extraneous considerations, such
as instructions or directions having no foundation in law and no
public authority while so acting would introduce its own fanciful
notions in the matter.
(iii) In a case between Bilenbarric Steels Limited Vrs.
Regional Development Commissioner for Iron & Steel and
others reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 62 in Para No.8 that,
Unless the relevant laws governing the matter provide
clearly to that effect, such an authority cannot go into question
of the merits of the transaction, to which, the documents relate.
(iv) In a case between Tejpal and another Vrs. State of
Haryana and others reported in 2015 (Supp.) Civ.C.C. 302
(P & H) that,
Registrar cannot refuse to register a document on ground
of title. Such a dispute is in the exclusive domain of Civil Court.
A dispute of title can never be used before a Registrar by ay
party.
(v) In a case between M/s.North East Infrastructure
Private Limited and Anoather Vrs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh and others reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. (A.P.) 220
in Para Nos.6 and 7 that,
The Sub-Registrar/Registrar cannot orally refuse to
receive document. He is either to register the document, if it is
found legally fit or pass an order of refusal by indicating reasons
for such refusal to register.
(vi) In a case between P.Pappu Vrs. The Sub-Registrar
reported in 2025 (2) Civ.L.J. (Madras) 205 that,
Even if, a person sells a property that does not belong to
him, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908, to
enable the Registrar to refuse Registration except Section 22-A
of the said Act.
(vii) In a case between Daitari Jena Vrs. State of Odisha
and others reported in 2025 (1) OLR 887 in Para No.7 that,
Section 34 (3) of the Registration Act do not authorizes
the registering officer to enquire into the consequential legal
effect as well as merit of the deed in question presented for
registration and to refuse its registration expressing opinion on
its merit.
8. The propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above
decisions does not empower/authorize the Sub-Registrar like the
O.P. No.3 in this matter at hand, for his refusal to entertain the
deed for sale indirectly questioning the title of the vendor with the
same on the ground of execution of previous agreement to sell by
the vendor in favour of a person other than the proposed vendee
in the deed for sale.
9. That apart, there are eight criterias in Rule 147 of the Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988 empowering the Sub-Registrar like Sub-
Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) for his refusal to receive the
document for registration.
10. The grounds raised above by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh
(O.P. No.3) for his refusal to entertain/receive the deed for sale
under Annexure-3 for its registration due to reflection in the E.C.
about an agreement to sell by the proposed vendor in favour of
the person other than the proposed vendee in the deed for sale is
not coming within any of the criterias out of eight enumerated in
Rule 147 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 empowering him
(O.P. No.3) for non-entertaining the deed for sale under
Annexure-3 for its registration.
11. Therefore, as per the discussions and observations made
above, it is held that, the refusal made by the Sub-Registrar,
Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to entertain the deed for sale of the
Petitioner on the ground of reflection in the E.C. about an
agreement to sell by the vendor in favour of a person other than
the proposed vendee in respect of the same properties cannot be
sustainable under law. For which, it was the duty of the Sub-
Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed for sale vide
Annexure-3 (which was presented for registration by the
Petitioner), but, the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) has not
done so. For which, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner to
direct the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed
for sale of the Petitioner vide Annexure-3 cannot be disallowed
under law.
12. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
Petitioner. The same must succeed.
13. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed.
14. The Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) is directed to
receive the deed for sale under Annexure-3, if, presented by the
Petitioner with the certified copy of this judgment for its
registration and to act upon the same as per the Registration Act
and Rules thereof.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
Signature High
NotCourt
Verified
of Orissa, Cuttack
23.07.2025// Binayak Sahoo
Digitally Signed Jr. Stenographer
Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Jul-2025 16:07:05
