High Court of Karnataka Hears Writ Petition by Legal Heirs and Subsequent Purchaser Challenging District Registrar's Order Directing Registration of Sale Deed. Petitioners Contend Appeal Filed After Five Years Was Barred by Limitation and District Registrar Lacked Jurisdiction Under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the District Registrar directing registration of a sale deed.

Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the District Registrar in R.A. No.4/2008-09, which directed the Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed dated 18.02.1988.

The petitioners contended that the appeal against refusal of registration was filed after 5 years, was barred by limitation, and the District Registrar had no jurisdiction to condone delay under Section 72 of the Registration Act; further, the mandatory income tax clearance certificate under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act was never produced.

Earlier, the High Court in W.P. Nos.3054/2006 and 1641/2007 had quashed a previous appellate order dated 10.01.2006 and remitted the matter to the District Registrar for fresh consideration.

Whether the appeal under Section 72(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 was maintainable after a delay of nearly five years, and whether the District Registrar had power to condone such delay. Whether non-production of the income tax clearance certificate under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act vitiated the registration, and whether the subsequent omission of Section 230A revived the instrument. Whether the rights of a subsequent purchaser under a registered sale deed could be ignored when the original parties to the unregistered deed were not arrayed in the appellate proceedings. Whether the remand order required the District Registrar to consider the limitation issue afresh and to pass a de novo order.

The sale deed was never registered because the mandatory clearance certificate under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act was never produced despite repeated notices; the Sub-Registrar formally refused registration on 10.11.2000. The appeal under Section 72(1) was filed on 18.08.2005, nearly five years after the refusal order, whereas the statutory limit is thirty days; the District Registrar has no power to condone delay as Section 72 does not provide for condonation, unlike Section 73. The respondents were fully aware of the refusal order and made false statements about the date of knowledge; the affidavit of the Inspector General confirmed that copies of the refusal order were issued to the legal heirs of the deceased vendee. The petitioners' rights as legal heirs and as a subsequent registered purchaser (sale deed dated 11.07.2005) had crystallized before the appeal was filed, yet the petitioners were not impleaded in the original appeal, and the remand proceedings failed to consider the limitation issue de novo. The omission of Section 230A of the Income Tax Act in 2001 did not cure the original defect, as the refusal had already been passed when the provision was in force.

The sale deed in question having been presented and refused on 18.02.1988, and no compliance having been made within the prescribed period, the Petitioners contend that the document could not have been legally revived or acted upon after the lapse of several years. By order dated 10.11.2000, the Sub-Registrar formally refused registration on the ground of non-production of the certificate. The District Registrar has no statutory power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 72. Section 72(1) expressly mandates that an appeal against an order of refusal shall be presented within thirty days from the date of the order. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were fully aware of the refusal order and that the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation.

On 18.02.1988, a sale deed was presented for registration by Sri Sadappa but was refused by the Sub-Registrar due to non-production of a clearance certificate under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act; the document was assigned pending number 96-P-642/87-88. Notices to produce the certificate were issued on 27.09.1989 and 27.07.1999. On 10.11.2000, the Sub-Registrar formally refused registration. Sri Sadappa died on 03.08.2002 without curing the defect. On 30.04.2005, the revenue records were mutated in favor of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5 as legal heirs of the vendor. On 11.07.2005, they executed a registered sale deed in favor of Petitioner No.2. On 18.08.2005, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (legal heirs of the vendee) filed an appeal under Section 72(1) with a delay condonation application; the appeal was allowed ex parte on 10.01.2006 directing registration. The petitioners challenged that order in W.P. Nos.3054/2006 and 1641/2007. By order dated 18.08.2008, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On remand, the appeal was renumbered R.A. No.4/2008-09, and the petitioners were impleaded. However, on 31.10.2009, the District Registrar again allowed the appeal and directed registration. The present writ petition was filed challenging that order.

• Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
• Registration Act, 1908: Section 34, Section 72(1), Section 73
• Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965: Rules 175, 187, 191(1)
• Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 230A
• Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
• Finance Act, 2001: Omission of Section 230A