Ananda Chandra Behera, J
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack in the district of Cuttack (O.P. No.3) to accept the deed of sale of the petitioner for registration, because, the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack in the district of Cuttack (O.P. No.3) orally refused to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner for registration expressing verbally that, he (petitioner) has no power to transfer his joint property through sale deed without the consent of his co-sharers. For which, without getting any way, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
2. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.
3. The law is very much clear that, the Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document, when the same is presented for registration. He/she is either to register the document or to refuse to register the same indicating the reasons for non-registration, if that document is not legally fit for registration.
According to The Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988, when a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to receive the same, but if the said document is not in compliance with the provisions of law, the Sub-Registrar may refuse to accept that document for registration assigning the reasons in writing about the same.
4. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in a decision between North East Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 220 (Andhra Pradesh) and in a case between Antaryami Nayak Vs. State of Odisha & Others in WP(C) No.18548 of 2025 decided on 11.07.2025 that,
“the Sub-Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to receive the document, but, he/she is to receive the same. If that document is not fit for registration, then, the Sub-Registrar can refuse to register the same assigning the reasons in writing for its non-registration as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.
5. Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent right/power to a co-sharer of a joint property like the petitioner to transfer/alienate his/her undivided share in the joint property without the consent of his/her co-sharer or co-sharers and Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse to receive the deed for sale, if presented for registration by a co-sharer like the petitioner in this matter, even if the said deed for sale is executed without the consent of his/her co-sharers.
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the decision between Damodar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided on 03.04.2025 in WP(C) No.4340 of 2025.
6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions and also taking the Rule 147 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 into account, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally directing Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed for sale, if presented by the petitioner for registration annexing the certified copy of this Judgment and to act upon the same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 in accordance with the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions.
If the said deed is registered, then, after registration of the same, the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack shall return that sale deed to the petitioner within 3 days of its registration after complying all the formalities thereof as per the Rule 100 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 of I.G.R of Odisha.
7. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.
