The Karnataka High Court has clarified that a Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a sale deed merely on the assertion of an alleged interim injunction when no such order is actually in force. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance must be grounded in verifiable court records, not speculative claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Syed Mehboob Kazi, a businessman from Vijayapura, sought to register sale deeds for plots formed in Layout No. 399/F and 399/22 at Indi, following an approved layout plan (Annexure-C). The respondent, Sub-Registrar’s Office, Indi, refused registration on the ground that an interim injunction was allegedly operative in a pending civil suit, OS No. 453/2024, filed by Bhimangouda s/o Yashwantarayagouda.
Key Facts
- The petitioner intended to sell plots in Survey Nos. 399/F and 399/22 to third parties.
- Bhimangouda filed OS No. 453/2024 on 15.04.2024 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against alienation of the suit properties.
- Bhimangouda filed I.A. No. I on 20.05.2024 seeking temporary injunction restraining sale, gift, mortgage, or encumbrance of the properties.
- The Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. I by order dated 02.07.2025 after hearing both parties.
- Bhimangouda filed MA No. 6/2025 before the Appellate Court on 18.07.2025, but no interim stay or injunction was granted against the petitioner.
- The petitioner submitted sale deeds for registration on 18.08.2025.
- The respondent issued impugned endorsement No. U No Ka.Indi/Nondani/2025-26 dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure-H), refusing registration on the false ground that an interim injunction was "continued and remained in force up to 30.08.2025."
- The order sheet of OS No. 453/2024, as verified by the Court, showed no order of injunction after 02.07.2025 and no extension beyond that date.
Procedural History
- 15.04.2024: OS No. 453/2024 filed by Bhimangouda against petitioner and others.
- 20.05.2024: I.A. No. I filed seeking temporary injunction.
- 02.07.2025: Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. I.
- 18.07.2025: Bhimangouda filed MA No. 6/2025 before Appellate Court.
- 18.08.2025: Petitioner submitted sale deeds for registration.
- 25.08.2025: Respondent issued impugned endorsement refusing registration.
- 25.08.2025: Writ Petition No. 202830 of 2025 filed before Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench.
- 08.06.2026: Hearing and final order passed.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned endorsement dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure-H).
- Direction to the Sub-Registrar to accept and register the sale deeds pertaining to Survey Nos. 399/F and 399/22 as per the approved layout.
- Any other relief deemed just in the circumstances.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Sub-Registrar may refuse registration of a sale deed based on a non-existent or expired interim injunction, and whether the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies in the absence of any operative court order restraining alienation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned endorsement was legally unsustainable because:
- No interim injunction was in force after 02.07.2025, as confirmed by the Trial Court’s order sheet.
- The respondent relied on a false assertion that the injunction was extended till 30.08.2025, which had no basis in any court order.
- Refusal to register on such grounds violated the petitioner’s right to property and due process under Article 300A of the Constitution.
- The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 TP Act only applies when a court has actually restrained alienation; mere pendency of suit is insufficient without an injunction.
- The respondent acted ultra vires by substituting its own assessment for the judicial record.
For the Respondent
The respondent, through the Additional Government Advocate, contended that:
- The suit was pending and therefore the risk of alienation existed.
- The endorsement was issued as a precautionary measure to avoid future litigation.
- The Sub-Registrar was entitled to exercise discretion in registration matters where litigation was ongoing.
- The petitioner could have sought a court direction before approaching the High Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the order sheet of OS No. 453/2024 and found no order of injunction after 02.07.2025. The endorsement dated 25.08.2025 falsely claimed that an injunction was "continued and remained in force up to 30.08.2025," a statement contradicted by the official record.
"The impugned communication is contrary to law and facts, as there is no order of temporary injunction operating against the petitioner as wrongly/erroneously stated in the impugned communication."
The Court emphasized that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not create an automatic bar to transfer merely because a suit is pending. It requires an actual restraint imposed by a court order. The doctrine of lis pendens is not a self-executing provision; it is triggered only when a court has issued a specific injunction.
The Court further held that the Sub-Registrar, as a statutory officer, is bound by the judicial record and cannot act on hearsay, speculation, or unverified assertions. The refusal to register based on a non-existent injunction was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that discretion could be exercised to "avoid future litigation," noting that such reasoning would empower administrative officers to override judicial determinations and create a parallel system of restraint.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure-H) was quashed. The respondent was directed to accept and register the sale deeds pertaining to Survey Nos. 399/F and 399/22 as per the approved layout plan. It was clarified that any registered sale deed shall be subject to the final outcome of OS No. 453/2024 and shall be hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the doctrine of lis pendens if a final injunction is later granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Registration Cannot Be Denied on Unverified Allegations
- Practitioners must verify court order sheets before challenging registration on grounds of injunction.
- Sub-Registrars must rely solely on certified court records, not oral assertions or unverified claims.
- A mere pending suit without an injunction does not justify refusal of registration.
Section 52 TP Act Requires Judicial Restraint, Not Mere Pendency
- Section 52 TP Act applies only when a court has issued a specific order restraining alienation.
- The doctrine of lis pendens is not triggered by the filing of a suit alone.
- Lawyers should advise clients to obtain certified copies of court orders before asserting lis pendens.
Administrative Discretion Must Be Grounded in Law
- Public officers cannot invoke "precaution" to override statutory duties.
- Refusal to perform a mandatory duty (registration) without legal basis invites writ jurisdiction.
- Courts will intervene where administrative action is based on factual error or misrepresentation.
