Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramjilal vs Dhaniram on 4 September, 2017
MCRC-2796-2012
(RAMJILAL Vs DHANIRAM)
04-09-2017
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mahesh Goyal, Counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.2. Heard finally.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 01-02-2012 passed by 2 nd A.S.J., Dabra, Distt. Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 201/2011, thereby affirming the order dated 15-1-2011 passed by J.M.F.C., Bhitarwar,District Gwalior in Criminal Case No.77/11 by which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate against the applicant for offence under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of I.P.C. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent no.1 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and co-accused on the allegation that the applicant in connivance with the Sarpanch, Patwari and the Panchayat Secretary has got his name mutated in respect of Survey No.266 area 0.55 and Survey No.267 area 0.18 situated in village Sayaaru, whereas the respondent no.1 had never sold his land to the applicant.
Challenging the order passed by the Magistrate, as well as by the Revisional Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that in fact the applicant had purchased the land in question for consideration of Rs. 2,25,000 from the respondent no.1 by a sale deed dated 19-11-2003 executed on a plain paper, in the presence of witnesses Kanchan Singh and Dashrath Singh. It was further submitted that on the basis of the sale deed, executed on a plain paper, the applicant got his name mutated in the revenue records.
Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent no.1 as well as the State Counsel, that where the price of the immovable property is more than Rs. 100, then Registration is compulsory and since, it is the case of the applicant that he had purchased the land in question for a consideration amount of Rs.2,25,000/- therefore, the sale deed on a plain paper does not confer any title on the applicant and further it is the case of the respondent no.1 that he had never sold the land to the applicant, therefore, prima facie offence under Sections 420,467,468,471 of I.P.C. is made out. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
It is the case of the applicant, that he had purchased the land in dispute from the respondent no.1 by a sale deed executed on a plain paper for a consideration amount of Rs.2,25,000/-.
Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 reads as under :-
''17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.â(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 (20 of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 (8 of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namelyâ
(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;
(c)non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and
(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
[(e)non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:] Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub- section any leases executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees. [(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and, if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said Section 53-A.] (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies toâ
(i) any composition-deed; or
(ii) any instrument relating to shares in a Joint Stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or
(iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or
(iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or
(v) any document [other than the documents specified in sub- section (1-A)] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or
(vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]; or
(vii) any grant of immovable property by the Government; or
(viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue Officer; or
(ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871 (26 of 1871), or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (19 of 1883); or
(x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists Loans Act, 1884 (12 of 1884), or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or [(x-a) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or]
(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or
(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue officer. [Explanation.âA document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.] Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the 1st day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered." Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 reads as under :-
''49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.âNo document required by Section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),] to be registered shallâ
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under CHAPTER II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877), [* * *]or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]'' Thus,it is clear that unless and until the document which is required to be registered, is registered, it shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein.
It is clear that since, there is no document in favor of the applicant creating any right or title in his favor, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the name of the applicant could not have been mutated in the revenue records. Further, it is the case of the respondent, that he had never executed any sale deed. The fact that there is no registered sale deed in favor of the applicant, the allegation made by the respondent no.1 that he had never executed the sale deed appears to be more probable. At this stage, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that although an unregistered sale deed may not confer any title in him, but the mutation of the name of the applicant in the revenue records, can be at the most said to be an irregularity committed by the revenue authorities, and therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant.
The submission made by the Counsel for the applicant, although appeared to be attractive but on deeper scrutiny, the same is found to be misconceived. It is the case of the respondent no.1, that he had never executed the sale deed in respect of the land in question, in favor of the applicant. Whether the sale deed even on a plain paper was executed by the respondent no.1 in favour of the applicant or any consideration amount was paid by the applicant are highly disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same are to be decided by the Trial Court after considering the evidence which would ultimately come on record.
Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the applicant in the complaint made by the respondent no.1, prima facie, make out offence under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of I.P.C.
Thus, the Trial Court did not commit any illegality by taking cognizance of the offence against the applicant under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the order dated 15-1-2011 passed by the Trial Court and the order dated 1-2-2012 passed by the Revisional Court are hereby affirmed.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB