[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Kedarnath Pani vs State Of Odisha on 28 November, 2025

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No.14983 of 2025

                (In the matter of an application under Articles 226
              and 227 of the Constitution of India)

               Kedarnath Pani                      ....          Petitioner

                                        -versus-
               State of Odisha, represented ....              Opp. Parties
               through Additional Chief
               Secretary, Inspector General
               of Registration Revenue and
               Disaster        Management
               Department and others


               Appeared in this case:-
                   For Petitioner         :          Mr. D. Devesh, Advocate

               For Opposite Parties       :                   Mr. Tej Kumar,
                                                 Learned Additional Standing
                                                                    Counsel.
                                                 (For Opposite Party Nos.1 to
                                                                       and 3)

                                                        Mr. S. Rath, Advocate
                                                     (For Opposite Party No.4)


               CORAM:
               JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

                                       JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 12.11.2025 / date of judgment : 28.11.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the endorsements, "i.e., "D.T.C.(District

Technical Coordinator) to block the land schedule in the said

application dated 20.08.2024 vide Annexure-6 of the Opposite

Party No.4, as status quo order has been passed under I.A. No.01

of 2018)" made by the Sub-registrar, Khandagiri(Opposite

Party No.3) on the top of the application dated

20.08.2024(Annexure-6) of the Opposite Party No.4.

2. When, on the basis of the above endorsements made

by the Opposite Party No.3 on the top of Annexure-6, the

Opposite Party No.3(Sub-registrar, Khandagiri) did not

receive any deed for sale of the petitioner in respect of the

properties covered under Annexure-6, then, the petitioner

filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing(setting

aside) the said endorsements made by the Opposite Party

No.3 on the top of Annexure-6 on the ground that, the Sub-

registrar, Khandagiri(Opposite Party No.3) is not authorized

under law to block the right of alienation of interest of the

petitioner in the properties covered under the letter of his

brother, i.e., Opposite Party No.4 vide Annexure-6.

To which, the Opposite Party No.4 objected and

contended that, this I.A. No.01 of 2018 has arisen out of a

suit vide C.S. No.09 of 2018 filed by him(Opposite Party

No.4), wherein, the petitioner is one of the parties. That suit

vide C.S. No.09 of 2018 is a suit for partition. The petitioner

is his own brother. The suit properties of C.S. No.09 of 2018

including the properties covered under Annexure-6 are their

joint and undivided properties. In I.A. No.01 of 2018 under

Order-39, Rules-1 and 2 of the C.P.C. filed by him(Opposite

Party No.4) in the suit vide C.S. No.09 of 2018 an order of

status quo in respect of the suit properties has already been

passed. Therefore, in order to prevent the transfer of the

properties by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit

and in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations,

he(Opposite Party No.4) had written an application vide

Annexure-6 on dated 20.08.2024 to the Sub-registrar,

Khandagiri(Opposite Party No.3) praying for blocking the

said properties from its registration. After considering his

application, the Sub-registrar, Khandagiri(Opposite Party

No.3) rightly made endorsements on the top of the

Annexure-6 to block the properties covered therein from its

selling, i.e., "D.T.C.(District Technical Coordinator) to block the

land schedule of that Annexure-6 as status quo order has been

passed under I.A. No.01 of 2018."

For which, the question of quashing/setting aside

such endorsements made by the Opposite Party No.3 on

Annexure-6 does not arise. So, the writ petition filed by the

petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

State (for Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3) and the learned

counsel for the Opposite Party No.4.

4. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of

both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is !

whether Sub-registrar, Khandagiri(Opposite Party No.3)

was/is authorized under law to make endorsements on the top of

the application of the Opposite Party No.4 vide Annexure-6, i.e.,

"D.T.C.(District Technical Coordinator) to block the land schedule

of that application vide Annexure-6, as status quo order was

passed under I.A. No.01 of 2018 arising out of the suit vide C.S.

No.09 of 2018?

5. As per law, Sub-registrar has no power for refusing to

order in respect of the property covered under a document,

unless and until, the Sub-registrar or the registering

authority is injuncted specifically by the civil court from

entertaining any deed of conveyance or any other document

in respect of any property.

6. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already

been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions :-

(i) In a case between Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan Parmarthik Nyas vrs. State of M.P. and others :

reported in 2008(2) Civil Court Cases-703(M.P.) that, Sub-registrar has no authority to refuse to register a document on the ground that, the vendor has no title to the property in question and is not competent to execute the sale deed. Because, the transferee gets right, title and interest of the transferor, if its vendor succeeds in the litigation.

(ii) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and others. vrs. The State of Bihar and others : reported in 1989(2)Civil Court Cases-

17(Patna) that, if the transferor does not have any title or 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.

(iii) In a case between D. Venketswar Reddy vrs. State of Telengana and others : reported in 2021(4) Current Civil Court Case-219(Telengana) that, registering authority can be inuncted from entertaining / registering a deed of conveyance or any other document affecting right / interest in a property only, if

an injunction order by a civil Court or an order of High Court is in operation imposing restrain on alienation or creating third party interest on a property.

(iv) In a case between Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vrs. Nanak Builder and Investors Private Limited and others : reported in (2013) 5 SCC-397 that, the doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that, the decision of a court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating parties, but, on those, who derive the title pendente lite. The provision of Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882 does not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer deed(sale deed) in otherwise, but to render it, subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation.

Therefore, the transfer pendente lite is not illegal ipso jure, but, remains subservient to the pending litigation.

"There is no reason why the breach of any injunction order should render the transfer inactive. Because, the party committing the breach may doubtless has incurred the liability to be punished for the breach committed by it, but, the sale itself may remain as between the parties to the transaction subject only to the decisions, which the competent court may issue in the suit against the vendor."

7. When, it is has been clarified in the ratio of the above

decisions that, the result of any transfer during the

pendency of the suit like the suit vide C.S. No.09 of 2018 in

this matter at hand shall be subject to the directions of the

court issued against the vendor of the transferee and when,

the registering authority, i.e., Opposite Party No.3 has not

been restrained by the Civil Court from entertaining any

deed of conveyance in respect of the properties covered

under Annexure-6, then, at this juncture, by applying the

propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid

decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, the

endorsements made by the Opposite Party No.3 on the top