JAGMAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, KALAYAT AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-927
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 19,2012

Jagmal Singh And Others Appellant
VERSUS
JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, KALAYAT AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) A suit under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short '1908 Act') for the passing of a decree for mandatory injunction vide which defendant No.1 was to be directed to register a document i.e. sale-deed dated 3.1.2006 was filed by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the document of sale was executed by defendants No.2 to 65 in favour of the plaintiffs on 3.1.2006 in respect of land measuring 165 K-8 M of village Bata, Tehsil and District Kaithal for a consideration of Rs. 40 lacs.
(3.) The sale-deed was presented on the same day before defendant No.1 for registration and attestation but defendant No.1, vide order dated 3,1,2006, refused to register the same. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an appeal under Section 72 of the 1908 Act before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kaithal and vide order dated 23.1.2006, the appeal stands rejected. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 had refused to register the sale- deed on the basis of a letter from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kaithal dated 11.11.2005 wherein it had been stated that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal had granted status quo order regarding possession vide order dated 31.12.2001 and even this Court vide order dated 7.2.2002 had passed the order of status quo regarding possession pertaining to the disputed land. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 23.12.2005 had been served on defendant No.1 to the effect that a Co-operative Society would need a prior permission for sale of land under Section 89 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short '1984 Act'). A reference was also made to an order dated 12.1.2006 passed by this Court in RSA No.1457 of 2001 vide which alienation of the disputed land had been stayed. It was pleaded in the suit that the reasons assigned by defendant No.1 in the order dated 3.1.2006 were not valid and defendant No.1 had, as such, shown dereliction of duty and violated the mandatory provisions of the law under the 1908 Act while refusing to register the sale-deed, dated 3.1.2006.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.