Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 711 (KAR)

Umrah Developers v. Deputy Commissioner

2010-06-14

H.G.RAMESH

body2010
JUDGMENT : Petitioner is the purchaser of the property in auction having participated in the auction held by the government on 12.4.2007. An application is also said to have been filed by it after deposit of the entire sale consideration, on 12.5.2010 seeking for issuance of Sale Certificate in favour of its nominee M/s Vee Nine Developers Pvt Ltd. According to the petitioner, despite such representation, on 15.5.2010 without considering the request of the petitioner, Sale Certificate is issued in the name of the petitioner itself instead of issuing the sale certificate in the name of M/s Vee Nine Developers Pvt Ltd who is the nominee of the petitioner. Learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner, referring to S.55 (1) (d) of the Transfer of Property Act, submitted that when the statute itself provides for such a provision enabling the purchaser either to get himself registered or in the name of his nominee, question of not considering the request of the petitioner is contrary to the legal position and amounts to arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities. Government Advocate referring to S.55 (1) (d) of the Act submitted that the said provision only provides for conveying to the buyer at a proper time and place as such, the seller is not under the obligation to execute the property as sought for by the purchaser. In this regard, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court rendered by the Division Bench in the case of B Himantharaju Setty Vs Corporation of the City of Bangalore – AIR 1954 Mys. 145. In the said case, while referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1935 Bombay 348, it is held that unless there is anything express in the contract to convey, entitling the vendor to insist that he is not bound to execute a proper conveyance to the purchaser or his nominee. The party to a contract may dispose of the benefit of the same in favour of any other person. Such a disposition may be made either by way of assigning or by sale or in any other way. Further, in the said judgment, referring to the position of law it was stated, there was liberty on the purchaser either to get himself registered in his own name or in somebody’s name. Such a disposition may be made either by way of assigning or by sale or in any other way. Further, in the said judgment, referring to the position of law it was stated, there was liberty on the purchaser either to get himself registered in his own name or in somebody’s name. The legal position is very much clear as to the discretion that is available to the purchaser in the absence of any such bar to convey it to the purchaser or to his nominee. The vendor has to oblige the purchaser. At the most, it may demand minimum expenses that may be incurred before such a registration i.e., any amount spent for necessary changes to be made before conveying the property or to issue necessary sale certificate. Since no registration has taken place so far and request is also placed by the purchaser well before the property is registered in the name of the purchaser, then necessarily there will not be any impediment for the respondent authority to oblige the petitioner. In the circumstances the respondent authority is hereby directed to issue Sale Certificate in the name of the nominee of the petitioner and to convey the property by way of registered sale deed as required under law. Respondent authority to convey the property as ordered above, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petition is allowed.