Orissa High Court
Rakhal Chandra Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others on 17 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.23534 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Rakhal Chandra Nayak
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 03.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :17.09.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
praying for quashing the order of refusal to register the deed
for sale of the petitioner passed under Section 71(1) of the
Registration Act by the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party
No.2) on dated 31.07.2025.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Parties.
3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which
prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, on dated
31.07.2025, the petitioner presented a deed for sale before the
Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) for selling his
properties covered under the said deed for sale in favour of the
Opp. Party Nos.5 to 7, but, the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp.
Party No.2) refused to register the same as per Section 71 (1)
of The Indian Registration Act, 1908 applying the provisions of
Section 22-A (c) of The Registration Act, 1908 assigning the
reasons that,
(i) a Civil Suit bearing No.184 of 2025 filed
by One Kelu Charan Swain against the
petitioner of this writ petition in respect
of the properties covered in the said
deed for sale is pending in the Court of
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Nimapara, Puri for adjudication of the
rights of the parties in respect of the
properties covered in that deed and if,
the registration of the deed for sale
shall be made, then, the same may
affect the rights of the parties to the
Civil Suit and;
(ii) as per Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882,
during the pendency of the Civil Suit
like C.S. No.184 of 2025, the transfer of
the properties, those are the subject
matter of the Civil Suit cannot be made,
because, in case of any transfer
through sale deed, the same will affect
the right of other parties who has filed
the suit.
4. It is pertinent to discuss and analyze the legality and
sustainability of the above two grounds/reasons assigned by
the Opp. Party No.2 for the refusal of registration of the deed
for sale of the petitioner.
5. So far the first ground/reason assigned by the Sub-
Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) in the impugned order
i.e. the Civil Suit bearing No.184 of 2025 filed by One Kelu
Charan Swain against the petitioner of this writ petition in
respect of the properties covered in the said deed for sale is
pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Nimapara, Puri for adjudication of the rights of the parties in
respect of the properties covered in that deed and if, the
registration of the deed for sale shall be made, then, the same
may affect the adjudication of the Civil Suit is concerned;
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between D. Venkateswar Reddy Vs.
State of Telengana & Others reported in 2021 (4)
Civil Court Cases 429 (Tel.) that, the registering
authority can be injuncted from entertaining 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 this Court is in
operation imposing restraint on alienation or
creating third party interest on a property. As a
corollary, mere pendency of an original
suit/appellate suit or case before this Court is not
a ground to injunct. (Para No.12)
II. In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association
and Others Vrs. State of Bihar & Others reported
in 1989 (2) Civil Court Cases 172 (Patna) & 1988
SCC Online Patna 142 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/she 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. (Para
No.3)
III. In a case between Tejpal and another Vrs. State
of Haryana and others reported in 2015 (Supp.)
Civil Court Cases 471 (Punjab & Haryana), Sub-
Registrar cannot join issues on title for refusing to
register the instrument. The said dispute is in the
exclusive domain of the civil court. A dispute on
title can never be used before a Registrar by any
party. (Para No.1)
IV. In a case between Bilenbarric Steels Limited Vrs.
Regional Development Commissioner for Iron &
Steel and others reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta
62, 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 document relate, but to
register the same. (Para No.8)
V. In a case between Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan
Parmarthik Nyas Vrs. State of M.P. and others
reported in 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 703
(Madhya Pradesh) that, refusal to register the sale
deed on the ground that, a dispute about title is
pending in the Court. Sub-Registrar has no
authority to refuse to register a document on the
ground that, the vendor/transferor has no title to
the property in question and is not competent to
execute the sale deed. Transferee would get the
right, title and interest of his vendor/transferor, if
its vendor succeeds in the litigation.
VI. In a case between Jajati Keshari Mohanty Vs.
State of Odisha & Others reported in 2025 (I)
OLR 936 that, the Sub-Registrar has no authority
or jurisdiction to refuse the registration of the deed
for sale on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit
in the Civil Court in respect of the properties
covered under the deed for sale in question.
VII. In a case between K. Gopi Vs. the Sub-
Registrar & Others reported in 2025 (2)
Civ.C.C. 320 (SC) that, it is not the function of
the Sub-Registrar or registering authority to
ascertain, whether the vendor has title to the
property which he is seeking to transfer. (Para
No.15)
6. When in this matter at hand, the Sub-Registrar,
Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) has refused to register the deed
for sale presented by the petitioner on dated 31.07.2025 on
the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit vide C.S. No.184 of
2025 filed by one Kelu Charan Swain against the petitioner,
the said reason for refusal of registration cannot be
sustainable under law in view of the propositions of law
enuniciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex
Court and Hon'ble Courts only for the reason that, mere
pendency of the Civil Suit in respect of the properties covered
under the deed for sale cannot be a ground for the Sub-
Registrar to refuse it to register.
7. So far the 2nd ground/reason assigned by the Sub-
Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) in the impugned order
for refusal of registration i.e. as per Section 52 of the T.P. Act,
1882, during the pendency of the Civil Suit like C.S. No.184 of
2025, the transfer of the properties, those are the subject
matter of the Civil Suit cannot be made, because, in case of any
transfer through sale deed, the same will affect the right of
other parties who has filed the suit is concerned;
As per law, a purchaser of property during the pendency
of suit would be bound by the decree of the civil suit.
8. Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882 does not prohibit for
selling the properties of the said suit during the pendency of
the suit. Because, selling of the suit properties after filing of
the suit shall always remain subject to the final outcome of
the suit in question, but, as per law, Such sale or transfer are
not ipso facto illegal.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap &
Others Vs. Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar &
Others reported in 2019 (4) CCC 32 (SC) that, selling
part of the suit properties after filing of the suit is hit
by the doctrine of lis pendens and the fate of the sale
transaction shall remain subject to the final outcome
of the suit in question. But, that sale transaction does
not become illegal automatically. (Para No.13)
II. In a case between T. Ravi & Another Vs. B. Chinna
Narasimha & Others reported in 2017 (2) CCC 5 (SC)
that, sale deed executed during pendency of suit is not
void, but valid to the extent of vendor's share. (Para
No.36)
III. In a case between M/s. Graftek Pvt. Ltd. & Others
vs. Sri Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, Bije
Bhubaneswar reported in 1998 (II) OLR 404 that, a
lis pendens purchaser is bound by the decision of the
suit.
IV. In a case between Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs.
Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited &
Others reported in (2013) Civ.L.T 321 (SC) that, lis
pendens sale/transfer does not annul conveyance or
transfer otherwise, but renders it subservient to rights
of parties to litigation. (Para No.24)
V. In a case between Jihas Vs. Salim reported in 2014
(3) Civ. Law Times (Kerala) 280 that, lis pendens
purchaser is bound by decree obtained against his/her
vendor or his/her purchaser in interest. (Para No.9)
VI. In a case between Satpal Singh & Others Vs. Jagpal
Singh & Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C 709
(P&H) that, principle of lis pendens does not annul
transfer, but renders it subservient to rights of parties
to a litigation. (Para No.15)
9. The propositions of law as clarified in the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and Hon'ble Courts,
Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882 does not prohibit the party to
the suit from selling/transferring the properties those are the
subject matter of the suit during the pendency of such suit.
Because, as per law, the purchaser shall be bound by
the result of decree in the suit in respect of the properties
covered under the deed in question.
10. So, in view of the aforesaid clarified propositions of law,
the reasons assigned by the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp.
Party No.2) in refusing to register the deed for sale of the
petitioner on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit in
respect of the properties covered therein applying Section 52
of the T.P. Act, 1882 cannot be sustainable under law.
11. As per the discussions and observations made above, the
above both the grounds assigned by the Sub-Registrar,
Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) in the impugned order (Annexure-
4 of this writ petition) for the refusal of the registration of the
deed for sale of the petitioner have become unsustainable
under law.
Therefore, there is justification under law for making
interference with the impugned order (Annexure-4) passed by
the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (Opp. Party No.2) through this
writ petition filed by the petitioner.
12. As such, 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 on contest.
14. The impugned order dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure-4)
passed by the Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (opposite party No.2)
is quashed/set aside.
15. Sub-Registrar, Kakatpur (opposite party No.2) is directed
to act upon that deed for sale of the petitioner, on the very
same day of production of the certified copy of this Judgment
by the petitioner remaining present with his vendees,
identifier and the witnesses of the deed as per the Registration
Act, 1908 and the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988.
16. After registration of the sale deed, the Sub-Registrar,
Kakatpur shall return that sale deed to the petitioner within 3
days of its registration complying all the formalities thereof as
per the Rule 100 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988
and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 of I.G.R of
Odisha.
17. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 17 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
