Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Orissa & Others on 18 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.25516 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Smt. Manjuli Naik @ Manjuli Kumari Nayak
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Orissa & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Karunakar Rath, 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 : 18.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 18.09.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
praying for directing the District Sub-Registrar, Sundargarh
(O.P. No.4) in the district of Sundargarh to accept the deed of
sale of the petitioner for registration, because, the District
Sub-Registrar, Sundargarh (O.P. No.4) orally refused to
receive that deed for sale for registration stating that, her co-
sharers have not signed in that deed for sale and there is no
document showing the falling of the sold properties in her
share through partition.
2. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.
3. The law is very much clear that, the District Sub-
Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document, when
the same is presented for registration. He/she is either to
register the document or to refuse to register the same
indicating the reasons for non-registration, if that document is
not legally fit for registration.
According to The Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988, when a document is presented for
registration, it is the duty of the District Sub-Registrar to
receive the same, but if the said document is not in
compliance with the provisions of law, the District Sub-
Registrar may refuse to accept that document for registration
assigning the reasons in writing about the same.
4. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in a decision between North East Infrastructure
Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 220
(Andhra Pradesh) and in a case between Antaryami Nayak
Vs. State of Odisha & Others in WP(C) No.18548 of 2025
decided on 11.07.2025 that,
"the Sub-Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to
receive the document and would consider the fitness of it
for registration or otherwise. Section 71 of the Registration
Act, 1908 empowers the Registration Authorities to receive
a document which is presented for registration and process
the same.
5. Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent
right/power to a co-sharer of a joint property like the
petitioner to transfer/alienate his/her undivided share in
his/her joint property without the consent of his/her other
co-sharer or co-sharers and District Sub-Registrar has no
power to refuse to receive the sale deed, if presented for
registration by co-sharer like the petitioner in this matter
even if the said deed for sale is executed without the
consent and signature of his/her other co-sharer as vendor
with the petitioner.
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the decision between Damodar Mishra Vs. State
of Odisha & Others decided on 03.04.2025 in WP(C)
No.4340 of 2025 wherein it has been held that,
As per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882, co-
sharer/co-owner has his/her inherent right to
alienate his/her share/interest in the Joint and
Undivided properties to the extent of his/her
share. Therefore, even there will be any sale of
specific portion of land in the joint and undivided
properties by co-owner of the same indicating
boundaries thereof, still then, the said
transfer/sale would be deemed as a transfer of
share of the vendor in the said joint and undivided
property. Any executive instruction or circular
issued by any authority including Government
contrary to the statutory law envisaged under
Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 restricting co-
owner/co-sharer to alienate his/her undivided
share/interest in his/her joint and undivided
property shall be deemed as non-est. Because,
executive instructions and circulars have no
applicability where statutory law governs the
field.
6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the above decisions and also taking the Rule 147 of
The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 into account, it is felt
proper to dispose of this writ petition finally directing District
Sub-Registrar, Sundargarh (O.P. No.4) to receive the deed for
sale of the petitioner for alienation of her share in the plots
covered in her deed for sale without indicating the sale of any
specific portion of the said plot and without indicating the
boundaries thereof, but only indicating the alienation of her
share/interest therein.
On presentation of the said deed for sale of the petitioner
annexing the certified copy of this Judgment, the District Sub-
Registrar, Sundargarh (O.P. No.4) shall act upon the same as
per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988 in accordance with the principles of
law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision between
Damodar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided on
03.04.2025 in WP(C) No.4340 of 2025.
If the said deed is registered, then, after registration of
the same, the District Sub-Registrar, Sundargarh (O.P. No.4)
shall return that sale deed to the petitioner within 3 days of
its registration after 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.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 18 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
