A Sub-Registrar need not restrain property transfers absent an interim civil court order.

The petitioner claimed rights under a Joint Development Agreement concerning 4 acres and 1 gunta in Sy. No. 132/1, Mundgod, and a related consent agreement providing for a 56:44 division of developed sites.

He alleged that he paid respondent No. 1 ₹15,00,000 towards development expenses, but respondent No. 1 sought to convey the property without his consent.

The petitioner had filed O.S. No. 78/2026 seeking, among other reliefs, to prevent alienation until sites were identified under the agreement; he acknowledged that the civil court had granted no interim injunction.

The Sub-Registrar declined to act on the petitioner’s request to prevent conveyance in the absence of a civil-court interim order.

The petitioner challenged that endorsement and sought directions concerning the property records and registration.

1. Whether the Sub-Registrar’s endorsement declining to act on the petitioner’s request, in the absence of an interim order from the competent civil court, was liable to be quashed.

2. Whether the High Court should grant the requested directions to preserve property entries or prevent conveyance while the petitioner’s civil suit was pending, despite the absence of an interim injunction.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court’s stated basis for its decision was that, without an interim order from the competent civil court, the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to act on the petitioner’s request disclosed no infirmity; it also considered that the petition involved disputed facts.

The order cites no statutory provisions beyond the constitutional provisions invoked in the petition and no judicial precedents.

The petitioner’s asserted contractual rights and alleged payments were disputed matters arising from the agreements and were being pursued in the civil suit.

Since the trial court had not issued an injunction, the Court found no infirmity in the Sub-Registrar’s decision not to restrain conveyance based on the petitioner’s notice alone.

Given the disputed facts and absence of interim relief from the civil court, the Court declined to grant the requested writ relief.

The petition was disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate action before the appropriate forum, if so advised.