Devika Rani filed her written statement on 2.7.1992 whereby she denied the execution of the sale deed and the agreements to sell in favour of the respondent No.
The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under One Devika Rani had allegedly executed an agreement on July 30, 1991 and supplemental agreement on September 2 1, 1991 respectively to sell 223 acres of land in Tataguni Estates on the outskirts of Bangalore City.
1 and of the passing of companysideration under them.
Then the Registrar should have heard the appeal.
1 to file an appeal before the District Registrar within thirty days on 28.8.92.
Under the circumstances he refused to register the document.
1 and that she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as its absolute owner thereof.
The agreements to sell and deed of sale were vitiated by fraud and were unenforceable in die eye of law.
It had been claimed that in furtherance thereof she had executed a sale deed said to be on 16.2.1992 but the same was number registered.
Respondent No.
The present suit had been filed with an additional relief of declaration also.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, dated 22.6.1994 made in W.A.No.
1 filed O.S.No.
122/92 in the companyrt of City Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural for declaration that the said sale deed dt.
On appeal, as stated earlier, the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal.
The entire agreement of sale and sale deed arc numberhing but sham and bogus and a companylusive job of K.T. Bhagath, the Managing Director of the K.T.Plantations and R.Devdas and Jude Devdas.
The Sub Registrar, Kengeri in his endorsement dated 30.7.92 refused to register the document, the sale deed.
emphasis supplied Sub Registrar is required to satisfy himself with the due execution of the document deed said to have been executed by Devika Rani since she herself was number present at the time of registration of the document.
Evidently, the plaintiff was filing speculative and false suits so as to somehow companyrce the defendant to sell away her estate to the plaintiff.
O.S.3692/92 which was filed in the City Civil Court at Bangalore was withdrawn by them.
This defendant had number executed any agreement or supplementary agreement to sell number had made any application to the Income Tax Authorities number had she executed an absolute sale deed.
In support thereof, she has raised several companytentions which are number relevant for the disposal of this appeal.
Thus, according to the defendant, she did number execute any agreement to sell or any sale deed in favour of the respon dent No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property and the same is bogus and vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
We have heard the companynsel on either side at length.
Leave granted.
2667/ 93.
Respondent No.
1 has been companysistently making efforts and attempts to grab the property of the defendant and their earlier suit No.
This situation led respondent No.
It was within his power that before proceeding to register the alleged companyveyance said to have been executed by Devika Rani to satisfy himself whether or number she executed it and whether or number the person presented on her behalf was authorised to have it registered on her be half He was also empowered to summon her to appear before him before proceeding to register the document.
When the Registrar was proceeding to hear the appeal to register the document, the appellant sought for stay of further proceedings in view of the pendency of the suit but he declined to stay the proceedings.
16.2.92 executed by Mrs. Devika Rani Roerich in its favour was valid and binding on her and also for mandatory injunction restraining her from creating any encumbrances on the said property or from transferring it and for a further perpetual injunction restraining her from interfering with his alleged possession and enjoyment of that property.
This defendant reiterated that she has number handed over possession of the suit schedule property to respondent No.
