Facts
The Appellant (Mrs. Jasmine) purchased a share of the suit property from her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 3) via a Sale Deed executed on 28.02.2024
Source reference: p. 3At the time, a partition suit (CS No. 981/2022) regarding the property was pending, where a status quo order had been passed on 01.11.2022
Source reference: p. 3Although the status quo order was not specifically extended between 26.07.2023 and 07.03.2024, the Sub-Registrar (Respondent No. 1) refused registration on 04.04.2024, citing the judicial restraint
Source reference: p. 4-5The Registrar (Respondent No. 2) dismissed the appeal against this refusal on 28.08.2024
Source reference: p. 4The Appellant filed a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, which was rejected by the Civil Judge under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC
Source reference: p. 5The Senior Civil Judge upheld this rejection in the first appeal on 04.11.2025
Source reference: p. 6The Appellant then preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
Source reference: no citationIssues
1. Whether the Registrar can refuse registration of a document if a status quo order was not in operation at the time of presentation but came into operation subsequently?
Source reference: p. 6, 92. Whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, bars the transfer of property inter vivos during the pendency of a suit?
Source reference: p. 7, 9Law Applied
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which embodies the doctrine of lis pendens, prohibiting the transfer of or dealing with immovable property during pending litigation so as to affect the rights of other parties, except with court authority
Source reference: p. 12Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908, governing suits to compel registration
Source reference: p. 2Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law
Source reference: p. 5Statement on the principle that a brief interregnum in a status quo order does not necessarily vacate the court's intent to preserve the property's status
Source reference: p. 11Reasoning
The Court observed that although there was a technical gap in the formal extension of the status quo order between 26.07.2023 and 07.03.2024, the judicial intent to maintain the corpus of the property during the partition suit remained evident
Source reference: p. 11The Appellant’s attempt to execute the deed on 28.02.2024 was characterized as a mala fide attempt to exploit a "short window"
Source reference: p. 11The Court found that on the date the Sub-Registrar passed the refusal order (04.04.2024), the status quo order had already been formally extended
Source reference: p. 11Applying Section 52 of the TPA, the Court reasoned that the pending partition suit created a legal embargo, and allowing registration would circumvent the trial court's authority
Source reference: p. 12The suit was deemed barred by law, justifying the rejection of the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d)
Source reference: p. 12Holding
The High Court answered both legal questions against the Appellant, holding that the Registrar was justified in refusing registration given the subsistence of a status quo order on the date of the decision
The Court held that Section 52 of the TPA prevents parties from bypassing judicial oversight during pending litigation
Source reference: p. 12The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that no right to compel registration exists while a status quo order is in effect
Source reference: p. 13Original Court PDF
JasminevsSub-Registrar-Iii & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in