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.

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)

1. 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.

2. Petitioner's name was mutated in revenue records.

3. Subsequently, respondent No.4 unilaterally cancelled the gift deed by document No.2722 of 2018 dated 10-10-2018.

4. Petitioner initially challenged the cancellation through W.P.No.42568 of 2018, which was withdrawn.

5. Thereafter, petitioner filed O.S.No.58 of 2023 seeking:

   • Declaration of title

   • Permanent injunction

6. Defendant (father) remained ex parte.

7. The suit was decreed on 01-11-2023, declaring the petitioner as absolute owner.

8. Petitioner submitted representation dated 15-12-2023 requesting deletion of respondent No.4’s name from EC.

9. Sub-Registrar and District Registrar failed to act.

10. Hence the present writ petition.

---

ISSUES FRAMED BY THE HIGH COURT

1. Whether the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in not making entries in EC pursuant to a civil court decree is illegal and arbitrary?

2. 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

1. A declaratory decree under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act declaring title renders a unilateral cancellation deed null and void.

2. Registering authorities are duty-bound to implement civil court decrees even if they were not parties to the suit.

3. An ex parte decree is binding until set aside and cannot be ignored by statutory authorities.

4. Non-executant of a document is not required to seek cancellation under Section 31; declaration under Section 34 is sufficient.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Sections 16(c), 20 — Agreement of Sale — Cancellation of Agreement — Necessity of Declaratory Relief — Maintainability of Suit Civil Procedure Code — Order VII Rule 7 — Relief — Suit for Specific Performance simpliciter — Not maintainable after termination of contract without prayer for declaration

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Sections 16(c), 20 — Agreement of Sale — Cancellation of Agreement — Necessity of Declaratory Relief — Maintainability of Suit

Civil Procedure Code — Order VII Rule 7 — Relief — Suit for Specific Performance simpliciter — Not maintainable after termination of contract without prayer for declaration

---

A. Specific Performance — Termination of Agreement — Declaratory Relief Mandatory

Where the agreement of sale is terminated by issuance of a cancellation notice, a suit seeking specific performance simpliciter, without seeking a declaration that the termination is illegal or void, is not maintainable in law.

Failure to seek such declaratory relief renders the agreement unenforceable.

(Paras 35–41)

Relied on:

• I.S. Sikandar (Dead) v. K. Subramani — (2013) 15 SCC 27

• Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh — (2019) 9 SCC 358

---

B. Suppression of Material Facts — Clean Hands Doctrine

Specific performance being an equitable and discretionary relief, the plaintiff must approach the Court with clean hands.

Where:

• termination notice was received prior to filing of suit, and

• receipt of such notice was denied in plaint and evidence,

the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts, disentitling him to equitable relief.

(Paras 42–50)

---

C. Readiness and Willingness — Mandatory Proof — Section 16(c)

In a suit for specific performance:

• readiness relates to financial capacity,

• willingness relates to conduct throughout the transaction.

A mere pleading that the plaintiff is ready and willing is insufficient.

The plaintiff must plead and prove availability of funds and continuous readiness from the date of agreement till decree.

(Paras 51–57)

Failure to adduce evidence of financial capacity is fatal to the suit.

---

D. Time Not Essence — Yet Readiness Mandatory

Even where time is held not to be the essence of the contract, the plaintiff is not absolved from proving:

• continuous readiness, and

• financial ability to perform obligations.

(Paras 35–36, 51–57)

---

E. Agreement of Sale — Not Binding on Non-Signatories

An agreement of sale executed by one co-sharer:

• does not bind other co-owners,

• unless executed with their express consent or authority.

Where property is joint family property and other sharers are not parties, decree for specific performance in respect of entire property cannot be granted.

(Paras 58–63)

---

F. Revenue Records — Not Proof of Title

Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed:

• are not documents of title,

• do not conclusively establish ownership.

(Para 62)

Relied on:

• P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar — 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999

---

G. Expert Evidence — Handwriting — Weak Evidence

Evidence of handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act:

• is a weak type of evidence,

• cannot be sole basis for finding execution,

• requires independent corroboration.

(Paras 66–68)

---

H. Joint Family Property — Manager’s Power Limited

Manager or karta cannot alienate joint family property without:

• legal necessity, or

• benefit of estate, or

• consent of coparceners.

(Paras 58–65)

Relied on:

• Balmukand v. Kamla Wati — AIR 1964 SC 1385

---

I. Equitable Relief — Alternative Restitution

Where specific performance is refused:

• Court may direct refund of amounts paid,

• with appropriate interest,

• to prevent unjust enrichment.

(Paras 73–75)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

---

Facts

• Agreement of Sale dated 24.07.2003 executed for Ac.6.03 cents.

• Sale consideration: ₹91,65,600/-.

• Advance paid: ₹30,00,000/-.

• Plaintiff alleged further payments of ₹49,00,000/- via DDs.

• Vendor issued termination notice dated 16.04.2004.

• Plaintiff denied receipt but evidence proved service.

• Plaintiff filed suit without challenging termination.

• Trial Court decreed specific performance.

• Defendants preferred appeals.

---

Core Legal Issues Considered

1. Whether suit for specific performance is maintainable without seeking declaration against termination?

2. Whether suppression of cancellation notice defeats equitable relief?

3. Whether readiness and willingness were proved?

4. Whether agreement binds non-signatory co-owners?

5. Whether trial court decree warranted interference?

---

Findings of the Division Bench

• Termination notice was served and proved.

• Plaintiff suppressed receipt of termination notice.

• No declaratory relief sought → suit not maintainable.

• Plaintiff failed to prove financial readiness.

• Property was not exclusive property of vendor.

• Agreement not binding on mother and children.

• Trial Court ignored binding Supreme Court precedents.

• Decree for specific performance legally unsustainable.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. After termination of an agreement of sale, a suit for specific performance is not maintainable unless a declaration is sought that such termination is illegal or void.

2. Specific performance being an equitable relief, suppression of material facts and false pleadings disentitle the plaintiff from relief.

3. Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) must be pleaded and proved by cogent evidence of financial capacity; mere assertions are insufficient.

4. An agreement executed by one co-owner does not bind other co-owners who are not signatories.

5. Revenue records such as pattadar pass books are not proof of title.

6. Handwriting expert evidence without corroboration cannot form sole basis for enforcement of contract.

7. Where specific performance is refused, restitution with interest is an appropriate equitable relief.

---

FINAL DECISION

• Specific performance decree set aside.

• Plaintiff entitled only to refund of amounts paid.

Revenue authorities cannot entertain mutation or pattadar claims raised after several decades, even if no statutory limitation is prescribed. Revisional powers under land revenue laws must be exercised within a reasonable period; otherwise such action becomes arbitrary and illegal. Where complicated questions of title arise, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction and parties must be relegated to the Civil Court. Section 8(2) of the ROR Act mandates institution of a civil suit when title is disputed; revenue remedies cannot substitute civil adjudication. Joint Collector cannot decide ownership or extent of title under the guise of mutation proceedings.

Revenue Law — Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 — Sections 6-A, 8(2) — Mutation Proceedings — Revisional Jurisdiction — Delay and Laches — Civil Court Jurisdiction — Scope of Revenue Authorities

Constitution of India — Articles 14 & 300-A — Writ of Certiorari — Long-standing Revenue Entries — Disturbance after Several Decades — Jurisdictional Error

---

A. Mutation Proceedings — Limitation — Reasonable Time

Even where no period of limitation is prescribed under the statute, revisional and mutation powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. Entertaining claims for alteration of revenue entries after an inordinate delay is arbitrary and opposed to the rule of law.

Claims raised:

• after 71 years from original possession, or

• at least 26 years after issuance of pattadar pass books,

cannot be entertained by revenue authorities.

(Paras 10–13)

---

B. Delay and Laches — Revenue Authorities Not Empowered to Reopen Settled Rights

Revenue authorities cannot entertain applications seeking mutation or issuance of pattadar pass books:

• after decades of settled possession, and

• where revenue entries have remained unchallenged for long periods.

Such belated claims unsettle settled rights and violate principles of fairness and certainty in land administration.

(Paras 10–13)

---

C. Revenue Records — Evidentiary Value

Entries in revenue records:

• prepared after public enquiry,

• maintained by public servants in official discharge of duties,

carry high evidentiary value, and longstanding entries cannot be disturbed lightly or after long lapse of time.

(Paras 9–11)

---

D. Complicated Questions of Title — Civil Court Alone Has Jurisdiction

Where rival claims involve:

• competing sale deeds,

• extent purchased under registered documents,

• succession disputes, and

• discrepancy between documentary title and revenue entries,

such issues raise complicated questions of fact and title, which:

• cannot be adjudicated by revenue authorities, and

• must be decided only by a competent Civil Court.

(Paras 6, 14)

---

E. Section 8(2) of ROR Act — Mandatory Recourse to Civil Court

Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 mandates that:

where entries denying title are made in the record of rights,
the aggrieved person must institute a civil suit for declaration.

A party who deliberately bypasses the Civil Court and invokes revenue jurisdiction cannot seek adjudication of title under the ROR Act.

(Paras 14–15)

---

F. Revisional Powers — Cannot Substitute Civil Court Jurisdiction

The Joint Collector cannot:

• assume powers of a Civil Court,

• adjudicate ownership, or

• decide extent of title based upon reports of subordinate revenue officials.

Exercise of such power amounts to jurisdictional transgression.

(Paras 6, 14–16)

---

G. Long-Standing Possession and Revenue Entries — Protection under Article 300-A

Disturbance of possession and recorded ownership after several decades without authority of law violates the constitutional protection of property under Article 300-A.

(Paras 13–16)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Revenue authorities cannot entertain mutation or pattadar claims raised after several decades, even if no statutory limitation is prescribed.

2. Revisional powers under land revenue laws must be exercised within a reasonable period; otherwise such action becomes arbitrary and illegal.

3. Where complicated questions of title arise, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction and parties must be relegated to the Civil Court.

4. Section 8(2) of the ROR Act mandates institution of a civil suit when title is disputed; revenue remedies cannot substitute civil adjudication.

5. Joint Collector cannot decide ownership or extent of title under the guise of mutation proceedings.

Pattadar Pass Books — Cancellation — Scope of Revenue Jurisdiction Revenue authorities exercising powers under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 are competent only to effect mutation of entries for fiscal purposes and cannot adjudicate complicated questions relating to title, succession, genuineness or validity of registered sale deeds, which are matters falling within the exclusive domain of civil courts. (Paras 6–8, 13–14)

Revenue Records — Cancellation of Pattadar Pass Books — Section 5(3) & 5-B of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 — Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities — Civil Dispute — Alternative Remedy — Article 226

Constitution of India — Article 226 — A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 — Sections 5(3), 5-B — Rule 19(2) — Revenue Entries — Pattadar Pass Books — Mutation — Title Dispute — Alternative Statutory Remedy — Status quo

---

A. Pattadar Pass Books — Cancellation — Scope of Revenue Jurisdiction

Revenue authorities exercising powers under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 are competent only to effect mutation of entries for fiscal purposes and cannot adjudicate complicated questions relating to title, succession, genuineness or validity of registered sale deeds, which are matters falling within the exclusive domain of civil courts.

(Paras 6–8, 13–14)

---

B. Serious Dispute of Title — Limitation on Revenue Enquiry

Where rival parties assert competing rights over immovable property involving:

• succession,

• validity of registered sale deeds,

• death of alleged vendors prior to execution of documents, and

• challenge to chain of title,

such disputes constitute serious civil disputes, and revenue authorities ought not to decide title by branding registered documents as void or irregular.

(Paras 7, 13–14)

---

C. Revenue Records — Nature and Effect

Entries in revenue records, including:

• 1-B Register,

• Pattadar Pass Books, and

• Title Deeds,

are not documents of title but are maintained for revenue purposes only. Cancellation or alteration of such entries cannot operate as declaration of ownership.

(Paras 6–7, 13)

---

D. Section 5(3) of ROR Act — Requirement of Notice and Enquiry

Section 5(3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 19(2) mandates:

• issuance of notice to all persons whose names appear in revenue records, and

• opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation or modification of entries.

Persons whose names stand mutated pursuant to registered sale deeds are “persons interested” and cannot be excluded from enquiry.

(Paras 6, 13, 15)

---

E. Revisional Power under Section 5-B — Alternative Remedy

Under Section 5-B(2) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the revisional authority is empowered to:

• call for records,

• examine legality and propriety of proceedings, and

• pass appropriate orders.

When such efficacious statutory remedy is available, the High Court ordinarily should not exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Paras 12, 15)

---

F. Maintainability of Writ Petition — Alternative Remedy

Though the petitioners were “persons interested” and entitled to question the impugned proceedings, the existence of an effective statutory remedy bars invocation of writ jurisdiction when:

• disputed questions of fact exist, and

• all grounds raised can be canvassed before the revisional authority.

(Para 15)

---

G. Interim Protection — Status Quo

In order to safeguard parties pending statutory proceedings, the High Court directed:

• maintenance of status quo as on the date of order,

• liberty to seek interim relief before revisional authority, and

• automatic vacation of interim protection in default of availing remedy within stipulated time.

(Para 15)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Revenue authorities under the ROR Act cannot adjudicate disputed civil title or declare registered sale deeds void or irregular.

2. Where complicated questions of succession and validity of conveyances arise, parties must be relegated to statutory or civil remedies.

3. Persons whose names are recorded in revenue registers pursuant to registered sale deeds are “persons interested” entitled to notice and hearing.

4. Availability of efficacious alternative remedy under Section 5-B of the ROR Act bars exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

5. High Court may grant limited interim protection to preserve status quo while directing parties to pursue statutory remedies.

Wakf Property — Permanent Lease of 1887 — Validity — Authority of Muslim Community — Gazette Notification — Additional Evidence — Order XLI Rule 27 CPC — Remand Wakf Act, 1954 & 1995 — Sections 4, 5, 6 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 96 — Order XLI Rule 27 — Public Documents — Gazette Notification — Ryotwari Patta — Estate Abolition Act — Adverse Possession — Limitation

Wakf Property — Permanent Lease of 1887 — Validity — Authority of Muslim Community — Gazette Notification — Additional Evidence — Order XLI Rule 27 CPC — Remand

Wakf Act, 1954 & 1995 — Sections 4, 5, 6 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 96 — Order XLI Rule 27 — Public Documents — Gazette Notification — Ryotwari Patta — Estate Abolition Act — Adverse Possession — Limitation

---

A. Wakf Property — Proof of Wakf — Gazette Notification

Where the plaintiff–Wakf Board pleaded that the suit land was Wakf property identified during statutory Wakf survey and notified by Government Gazette dated 30.11.1961, but such Gazette Notification was not produced before the trial Court, the Gazette Notification constitutes a crucial public document for deciding the character of the property and determination of title.

The Gazette Notification, being prior to institution of the suit and forming the statutory basis for identification of Wakf property, has direct bearing on the adjudication of title and therefore qualifies for reception as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(Paras 18–25)

---

B. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC — Additional Evidence — Scope

Additional evidence may be permitted in appeal not as a matter of right, but:

• when the appellate court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment, or

• when there exists any other substantial cause, including removal of obscurity or lacuna affecting effective adjudication.

The appellate court is empowered to receive additional evidence even where it is otherwise able to pronounce judgment, if the interest of justice requires that material issues be clarified.

(Paras 19–24)

---

C. Public Documents — Gazette Notifications — Ryotwari Patta Proceedings

Gazette Notifications issued by Government and proceedings of Settlement Officers, Commissioners of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, writ orders, and decrees of civil courts constitute public documents.

Where such documents relate to a period much prior to institution of the suit and go to the root of title and possession, refusal to receive them would defeat effective adjudication.

(Paras 18, 26–28)

---

D. Wakf Property — Lease by Persons Other Than Mutavalli

Plaintiff Wakf Board alleged that permanent lease deeds dated 06.07.1887 executed by members of Muslim community were void ab initio, as:

• only a Mutavalli is competent to lease Wakf property; and

• Wakf property cannot be permanently alienated.

The validity of such leases cannot be conclusively determined without examining:

• statutory Wakf notification, and

• nature of property as Wakf at the relevant time.

(Paras 6–9, 29)

---

E. Ryotwari Patta — Effect — Binding Nature

Defendants relied upon:

• ryotwari patta issued by Settlement Officer under Estate Abolition Act,

• dismissal of revisions by higher revenue authorities, and

• writ proceedings confirming such patta.

Where competing claims are based on Wakf law on one side and Estate Abolition proceedings on the other, both sets of documents must be examined together, and no final conclusion can be drawn in absence of complete documentary foundation.

(Paras 15–17, 26–30)

---

F. Adverse Possession — Against Wakf Property

Plea of adverse possession was raised by defendants based on long possession and alienations.

However, determination of adverse possession necessarily depends upon:

• proof of lawful origin of possession,

• nature of property (Wakf or otherwise), and

• statutory protection afforded to Wakf properties.

Such issues cannot be finally adjudicated without additional documentary evidence now sought to be produced.

(Paras 9, 29–31)

---

G. Remand — When Appropriate

Where:

• both parties seek reception of additional evidence;

• documents are public documents;

• documents relate to period prior to suit;

• evidence goes to root of title; and

• adjudication without such evidence would be incomplete,

the proper course is to set aside the decree and remand the suits, permitting parties to prove existence, authenticity, genuineness and contents of documents in accordance with law.

(Paras 30–32)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Gazette Notification issued under Wakf law identifying property as Wakf is a foundational document for adjudicating title and must be produced and examined.

2. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence in appeal when such evidence is essential for complete and satisfactory adjudication of the dispute.

3. Public documents predating the institution of the suit and directly affecting title cannot be excluded merely on the ground of delay.

4. Where rival claims arise under Wakf law and Estate Abolition law, both statutory regimes must be examined on evidence before rendering findings.

5. In absence of complete documentary foundation, confirmation of decree is impermissible and remand becomes necessary.