Certified Copy of Decree Enough for Sub-Registrar to Cancel Registered Documents

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

A single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, in the case of Mr. Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another  (2026), held that a Sub-Registrar is duty-bound to record the cancellation of a registered document upon production of a certified copy of the decree and judgment of the competent civil court, even in the absence of a formal communication under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court issued detailed guidelines to Sub-Registrars and civil courts across Karnataka to streamline the process of communicating and giving effect to such decrees.

What was the Background of Mr. Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and a Power of Attorney (PoA) executed between the original owner of a property and a developer. 
• The developer failed to commence construction work within the stipulated time. 
• The original owner filed a petition before the Commercial Court seeking cancellation of the JDA and PoA, which the Commercial Court allowed, declaring the documents void. 
• The owner then approached the Sub-Registrar (Mahadevapura) with a certified copy of the decree to have the cancellation recorded. 
• The Sub-Registrar declined, issuing an endorsement on three grounds: 
• The commercial court had not communicated the decree directly to his office. 
• A certified copy alone was insufficient. 
• Separate directions from the High Court were required. 
• The aggrieved decree-holder filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Certified Copy as Conclusive Proof: 

• Certified copies issued by courts carry statutory authenticity and must be treated as conclusive proof of the decree. 
• A Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to act on such a copy merely because no direct communication was received from the court. 

Ministerial Nature of Sub-Registrar's Role: 

• The role of Sub-Registrars is ministerial in nature. 
• They are not entitled to inquire into the correctness of the decree, nor can they demand separate orders from the High Court once a competent civil court has declared a document void. 

Endorsement Amounted to Abdication of Duty: 

• The court characterised the Sub-Registrar's refusal as arbitrary and an abdication of statutory duty. 
• Public authorities entrusted with statutory functions are expected to act with due diligence and respect for judicial orders. 

Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act: 

• The court noted that Section 31(2) contemplates courts sending a copy of the decree to registering authorities. 
• However, the absence of such formal communication cannot justify delays, avoidable litigation, or the compulsion on parties to approach the High Court under Article 226 merely to give effect to decrees already in their favour.

Guidelines Issued by the Court: 

To Sub-Registrars: 

• Even where no formal communication is received from the court, if a party produces a certified copy of the judgment and decree declaring a registered instrument as cancelled or void, the Sub-Registrar shall not refuse to act upon it. 
• The Sub-Registrar shall verify the authenticity of the certified copy and thereafter record the cancellation in the relevant registers and indexes. 

To Civil Courts: 

• Upon passing a decree cancelling a registered instrument, the court shall direct its office to transmit a copy of the decree to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar in whose office the document was registered. 
• Such communication shall ordinarily be sent within four weeks from the date of the decree. 
• The communication shall clearly mention the document number, date of registration, book and volume, and the nature of the document cancelled. 
• Transmitted copies shall be accompanied by a covering letter from the civil court directing the Sub-Registrar to make necessary entries.

What is Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

• Section 31 deals with when a court can order cancellation of a written instrument. 
• Who can sue: A person against whom an instrument is void or voidable, and who reasonably apprehends that if it remains outstanding, it may cause him serious injury. 
• Relief available: The court may, in its discretion, adjudge the instrument void or voidable and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. 
• Registered instruments: If the instrument was registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the court must send a copy of its decree to the concerned registration officer, who shall then note the cancellation in his records against the copy of the instrument.
• Key points to remember: 
  • The apprehension of injury must be reasonable, not speculative. 
  • Relief is discretionary — the court is not bound to cancel even if the instrument is void/voidable. 
  • Covers both void and voidable instruments. 
  • The registration office must be notified to update official records and prevent future misuse.