Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Singh And Anr. vs Sub Registrar And Ors. on 1 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR787
Author: B. Rai
Bench: B. Rai
JUDGMENT B. Rai, J.
1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 1.10.1996 Annexure P-1 and dated 19.11.1996 Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively with a further prayer for directing respondent No. 1 to register the sale deed dated 1.10.1996 executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 which has been refused to be registered by respondent No. 1.
2. Case of the petitioner No. 1 is that his father was owner in possession of piece of land situated in Mohalla Nalapur, Narnaul. After the death of his father, the said property was inherited by the petitioner's mother, his one brother and four sisters. Mother of petitioner No. 1 also got sanctioned a building plan for constructions of two rooms from the Municipal Committee, Narnaul, vide resolution dated 5.12.1990. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner No. 1 expired and the construction could not be carried out. Family of petitioner No. 1 was in need of money, therefore, they agreed to sell the aforesaid plot in dispute measuring 39 square yards in favour of the petitioner No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/- vide agreement dated 30.7.1996. In pursuance of the said agreement of sale petitioner No. 1 on behalf of himself and being general attorney of his sister executed a sale deed dated 1.10.1996 on the stamp papers of Rs. 10,075/- purchased by petitioner No. 2, The said sale deed was duly executed which was duly witnessed by two independent witnesses. On the same day, the sale deed was presented by petitioner No. 1 before the Sub Registrar, Narnaul, along with two attesting witnesses for registration of the sale deed. The requisite registration charges were also deposited. The Sub Registrar had duly verified the identity of the executant of the sale deed as well as the witnesses and the purchase and also satisfied himself about the execution of the general power of attorney of the sister of petitioner No. 1. However, he refused to register the above said sale deed on the ground that the land under sale deed is related to Mandi Khuntiwala and there is a dispute regarding its ownership. The order of refusal dated 1.10.1996, is annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 and his sister are owners in possession of the above said plot but the Sub Registrar in an illegal and arbitrary manner refused to register the sale deed on the ground that the ownership of the property was in dispute. According to petitioner No. 1 no civil dispute concerning the property in question was pending in any Court of law, therefore, the Sub Registrar was not justified in refusing the registration of the sale deed. That order of refusal was challenged by petitioner No. 1 in appeal before the Registrar- cum-Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul. That appeal was accepted and matter was remanded to the Sub Registrar with the direction that the latter shall decide the question of ownership of the land in dispute after taking evidence from the parties and further directed that thereafter, the sale deed be registered. Copy of the order dated 19.11.1996 annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.
3. It may be noticed that initially Mandir Khuntiwala Dharamarth Trust Narnaul situated in Mohalla Nalapur Narnaul was not arrayed as party but in pursuance of the order dated 18.9.1997 passed in C.M. No. 20834 of 1997, it was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition.
4. In response to the notice of motion, respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement while respondent No. 3 has filed a separate written statement. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken a preliminary objection that the land in dispute is in possession of the temple "Kuttiwala" in Mohalla Nalapur, Narnaul, as owner which is looked after by the trustee of the trust known as Mandir Kuttiwala Dharamrath Trust created vide trust deed No. 1101 dated 7.10.1996. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to sell the land in question. It has been further pleaded that respondent No. 1 has every right to ascertain and satisfy himself about the identity of the executants and the attesting witnesses before registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was not properly presented before respondent No. 1 regarding the identity of the executant because witness No. 1 Bansi Lal, Lambardar was not from revenue estate of Narnaul and the second witness was not known to respondent No. 1, therefore, respondent No. 1 rightly refused to register the sale deed.
5. Respondent No. 3 also took a preliminary objection that the writ petition has been filed against the order Annexure P-2 passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, whereby respondent No. 2 had remanded the case to respondent No. 1 with the direction that respondent No. 1 may provide full opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence about ownership and after making spot inspection shall decide the case afresh. Therefore, the writ petition being pre-mature is liable to be dismissed. It is also the case of respondent No. 3 that if respondent No. 2 had refused to order the registration of the document under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the person claiming under such document or his representative or assignee or agent has the right to file a suit within 30 days from the date of order of refusal for a decree directing the registration under Section 77 of the Act. It is further pleaded that in the year 1982 when one Chhote Lal wanted to raise some construction over the property in dispute, respondent No. 3 filed a Suit No. 1274, dated 18.8.1982 for permanent injunction restraining Chhote Lal from raising any construction in the suit property shown in the site plan annexed as R1. That suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.1982. In the site plan, the property in dispute was described as ABCDEF and was shown as ownership of respondent No. 3. Other averments contained in the writ petition have been controverted by the respondents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar for registration but he refused to register the sale deed vide order dated 1.10.1996 Annexure P-1 on the ground that the property is related to Mandir Kuttiwala the ownership of which is in dispute. That order was challenged in appeal before the Registrar, Mohindergarh, at Narnaul. While dealing with the appeal, the Registrar passed the following order the relevant portion of which reads as under :-
"........I have reached the conclusion that both the parties were not given opportunities to produce the evidence about the ownership of the disputed land. Thus, I hereby remand this matter to the Sub Registrar, Narnaul, with a direction that he may provide full opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence about the ownership and alter making the spot inspection again decide the matter......."
8. The question now arises is, whether registering officer can refuse registration of document conveying property the ownership of which is in dispute? We are of the firm view that the answer is in negative.
9. The Registration Act itself is a complete code. All reasons have been specifically enumerated under Sections 21, 23, 28, 32 and 35 of the Act for which a Sub Registrar or the Registrar may refuse to register the sale deed and other documents required to be registered under the Act. The Act nowhere provides that the Sub Registrar/Registrar can refuse to register the lease deed/sale deed pertaining to a property the ownership of which is in question. It does not fall within the domain of the Registrar or Sub Registrar to ask the executant of the deed to establish his or her ownership in respect of the property which is subject matter of the deed of conveyance. The legislature, in its wisdom, has not thought it proper to make such a provision in the Act authorising the Registrar/Sub Registrar to make a probe into the ownership of the property sought to be transferred in any manner. The provisions of Section 34 of the Act empowered the Registering Officer to make inquiry before registration of a document. The Registering Officer has the right to make inquiry whether or not such document was accepted by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent satisfy himself of the right of such person to appear.
10. When a document is presented for registration, the Registrar/Sub Registrar has the power to look into and satisfy himself that the requisites of the provisions contained in Sections 21, 23, 28 and 35 have been fulfilled. After appearance of the persons under sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act, the law mandates the Registering Officer to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and to satisfy himself as to the identify of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and in the case of any person as a representative, assignee or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. If in any case any of the requirement of the said provision is not satisfied, the Sub Registrar has the power to refuse the registration of a document on the ground that the ownership of the property is in dispute. Therefore, under the Act, neither the Sub Registrar has any power to refuse the registration of the sale deed on the ground of disputed ownership of the property nor the Registrar had any authority to remand the case to the Sub Registrar directing him to provide full opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence about the ownership of the disputed land. Therefore, the orders dated 1.10.1996, Annexure P1 and dated 19.11.1996 Annexure P-2, are liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders Annexures P1 and P2 are set aside and the Sub Registrar-Respondent No. 1 is directed to register the sale deed in accordance with law. No costs.