Registration Act, 1908 — Encumbrance Certificate — Civil Court decree — Effect — Duty of registering authority
Where a competent Civil Court has passed a decree declaring title and holding a cancellation deed to be null and void, the Sub-Registrar and District Registrar are bound to give effect to such decree by making appropriate entries in the register and Encumbrance Certificate. The registering authority cannot refuse implementation on the ground that it was not impleaded as a party to the suit.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Sections 31 and 34 — Distinction — Non-executant — Declaratory suit
A person who is not the executant of a document is not required to seek cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Such person is entitled to file a suit under Section 34 seeking declaration that the document is void, illegal or non-est and not binding on him.
(Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112 — followed)
Civil decree — Binding nature — Ex parte decree — Validity
An ex parte decree passed by a competent Civil Court is as valid and binding as a decree passed on contest, until it is set aside by a competent court. Registering authorities are not entitled to sit in appeal over such decree.
Registration authorities — Ministerial function — No adjudicatory power
The registering authority has no jurisdiction to question the correctness, legality or merits of a civil court decree. Once a certified copy of judgment and decree is produced, the authority is bound to act upon it.
Unilateral cancellation of gift deed — Remedy of donee
Where a gift deed is unilaterally cancelled by the donor, the donee being a non-executant must seek declaration of title, and not cancellation of the document. Once declaration is granted, the cancellation deed becomes unenforceable and must be reflected accordingly in registration records.
FACTS (as recorded by the Court)
-
Respondent No.4 (father) executed a registered gift deed dated 31-07-2008 in favour of the petitioner covering:
-
Ac.1-24 cents in R.S.No.371/2D2
-
Ac.4-00 cents in R.S.No.373/2B
-
Koniki Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District.
-
-
Petitioner's name was mutated in revenue records.
-
Subsequently, respondent No.4 unilaterally cancelled the gift deed by document No.2722 of 2018 dated 10-10-2018.
-
Petitioner initially challenged the cancellation through W.P.No.42568 of 2018, which was withdrawn.
-
Thereafter, petitioner filed O.S.No.58 of 2023 seeking:
-
Declaration of title
-
Permanent injunction
-
-
Defendant (father) remained ex parte.
-
The suit was decreed on 01-11-2023, declaring the petitioner as absolute owner.
-
Petitioner submitted representation dated 15-12-2023 requesting deletion of respondent No.4’s name from EC.
-
Sub-Registrar and District Registrar failed to act.
-
Hence the present writ petition.
ISSUES FRAMED BY THE HIGH COURT
-
Whether the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in not making entries in EC pursuant to a civil court decree is illegal and arbitrary?
-
Whether the registering authority must be impleaded as a party defendant in the civil suit for implementation of the decree?
FINDINGS AND REASONING
1. Registering Authority need not be impleaded
-
Plaintiff is dominus litis.
-
Relief sought in the civil suit was declaration of title and injunction, not any relief against registration authorities.
-
Therefore, non-impleadment of Sub-Registrar does not render decree ineffective.
“The contention that the registering authority must be impleaded is misconceived.”
2. Effect of Declaratory Decree
-
Once a Civil Court declares title and declares the cancellation deed as null and void:
-
The registering authority is bound to act upon it.
-
It has no discretion to refuse.
-
3. Section 31 and 34 — Interplay
-
Court explained that:
-
Section 31 applies when executant seeks cancellation.
-
Section 34 applies when non-executant seeks declaration.
-
-
Reliance placed on:
Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors.
(2010) 12 SCC 112
“Where executant wants annulment — cancellation suit.
Where non-executant seeks annulment — declaration suit.”
4. Declaratory decree equivalent to cancellation
Relying on:
-
Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami Pillai (FB Madras HC)
-
Suraneni Lakshmi v. B. Venkata Durga Rao, 2011 (3) ALD 721
The Court held:
-
Declaration of title necessarily includes adjudication on invalidity of competing documents.
-
Such declaration is as good as cancellation.
5. Ex parte decree — Binding effect
Relying on:
Vijay Singh v. Shanti Devi, (2017) 8 SCC 837
“An ex parte decree is a valid decree and binds parties until set aside.”
Hence:
-
Registering authority cannot disregard decree merely because it is ex parte.
6. Role of Registration Authority
-
Function is ministerial, not adjudicatory.
-
Authority cannot examine:
-
correctness,
-
validity,
-
propriety,
-
merits of decree.
-
If doubt exists, authority may seek clarification from court — not refuse implementation.
FINAL HOLDING
-
Inaction of respondents 2 and 3 is illegal and arbitrary.
-
Registering authorities are bound to implement civil court decree.
OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS
The writ petition was allowed, with the following direction:
Respondents 2 and 3 shall forthwith make appropriate entries in the Encumbrance Certificate and registration records in respect of:
-
Ac.4-00 cents in R.S.No.373/2B
-
Ac.1-24 cents in R.S.No.371/2D2
-
Koniki Village, Pedapadu Mandal
-
Vatluru SRO, West Godavari District
as per the judgment and decree dated 01-11-2023 in O.S.No.58 of 2023.
No costs.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
A declaratory decree under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act declaring title renders a unilateral cancellation deed null and void.
-
Registering authorities are duty-bound to implement civil court decrees even if they were not parties to the suit.
-
An ex parte decree is binding until set aside and cannot be ignored by statutory authorities.
-
Non-executant of a document is not required to seek cancellation under Section 31; declaration under Section 34 is sufficient.
