Delhi High Court
Subhash Chander Ahuja (Shri) And Ors. vs Ashok Kumar Ahuja And Ors. on 14 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 116(2005)DLT125
Author: Vikramajit Sen
Bench: Vikramajit Sen
JUDGMENT Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. In this suit the plaintiff has prayed that four instruments, being two Gift Deeds and two Relinquishment Deeds, all dated 27th February, 2002 be declared void and cancelled and be delivered to the Plaintiffs; and for the issuing of a Perpetual Injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from dealing in any manner with the properties covered by these four Deeds. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 1 are real brothers and the aforementioned Deeds have the effect of conveying/transferring properties by these Plaintiffs to Defendant No. 1 The Plaint has been filed on 16th October, 2003, almost twenty months after the execution of these documents.
2. Learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 has strongly contended that there are various inconsistencies, of great import, in the sequence of events narrated in the Plaint and in documents, and in the arguments put forward on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Broadly stated the Plaintiffs' narration of events is that whist all four documents were signed and executed on 27th February, 2002, a misunderstanding had occurred on that date itself and therefore the documents ought not to have been accorded registration under the Registration Act. Mr. Singhla had no doubt attempted to argue contrary to the sequence of events mentioned in the letter of Plaintiff No. 2, dated 11.3.2002, addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Sub-District VI-B, Pitam Pura, Delhi. It is indeed of significance that this letter had been authored a fortnight after the alleged misunderstanding between the brothers, even though the registration of the four documents would undisputably have far-reaching consequences. This conduct is contrary to normal human reaction. The Plaintiffs must be held to the contents of the said letter. The letter states thus:
"With due respect it is stated that on 27.2.2002, I, Raj Kumar Ahuja, along with my brother Shri Subhash Ahuja and my nephew Sunny Ahuja and niece Ruchi Ahuja, along with Mr. Ashok Ahuja came to your office to execute a gift deed in favor of Mr. Ashok Ahuja (Brother). Although we all have signed all the documents along with thumb impression and Photographs with identification i.e. passport No. etc. on the deed and after completing all the formalities done and Regd. Slip of document had also been issued on the date i.e. 27.2.2002 during this course due to some misunderstanding Mr. Ashok Ahuja threatened us and snatched all documents prepared by the document writer (signed by all of us), before presenting before you.
Whereas the same documents had not been executed on that day but I am afraid that Mr. Ashok Ahuja whose favor all the property has to be transferred, shall execute the same documents through other source or way without our presence before you.
I therefore humbly request you to please look into the matter personally so that the document could not execute without our presence in favor of Mr. Ashok Ahuja.
Thanking you in anticipation for an early action in this regard."
It is therefore beyond the pale of controversy, at least at this stage of the litigation, that the documents were signed and presented for registration since otherwise there would be no cause or occasion for the issuance of the "Regd. Slip of documents". It is also obvious that Plaintiff No. 2 has used the word "executed" as synonymous with "registered", since otherwise the contents of the letter would be mutually destructive.
3. On a perusal of the previous proceedings, it emerges that my learned Brother, C.K. Mahajan, J. had summoned the Sub-Registrar and had received his explanation as to why the documents presented for registration on 27th February, 2002, in respect" of which the Registration Slip had been issued eventually came to be registered/delivered to Defendant No. 1 on 13.11.2002 and/or 20.11.2002. I must assure that the explanation was found to be satisfactory as no further directions had been asked for or issued in this context, as also the fact that the interim applications which are now being disposed of had not been pressed by learned Counsel for the Plaintiff while the matter was fresh in every detail in everyone's mind and memory.
4. The first question which has to be determined is whether the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, which I am of the opinion they have failed to do. The execution/signing of the four documents on 27.2.2002 is admitted by all concerned. It is obvious from the contents of the letter dated 11.3.2002 that these documents had also been presented for registration, even though there has been an attempt by learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs to argue to the contrary. It is also apparent that these documents have been granted registration. If there is any discrepancy, irregularity or illegality in the registration that is a matter which the Plaintiffs are yet to establish. A presumption of validity attaches to every action of an Authority, although this presumption is assailable. It would cause bedlam and anarchy if duly executed documents which have been granted registration are not to be given effect to merely because a party states that a fraud has been committed not so far as the execution of the documents are concerned, but in their being registered by the Sub-Registrar.
5. The Court cannot ignore the contents of the letter dated 11.3.2002 which has been allegedly addressed to the Sub-Registrar a fortnight after a momentous disagreement between the parties having the far-reaching consequences of immovable property changing hands. If such an incident had occurred the Plaintiffs would have to satisfactorily explain the delay in the Trial. Further, it cannot be ignored that apart from this inexplicable delay contrary to predictable human reactions, there is also a further unfathomable delay of almost twenty months in filing the present Suit. Obviously in this interregnum which prompted the initiation of litigation, other events had transpired which will indubitably be unfolded during the Trial. The Plaintiffs have therefore totally failed in disclosing the existence of a prima facie case in their favor.
6. So far as the registration of the four documents beyond the period of eight months is concerned, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs strenuously submits that the action is in violation of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Delhi Registration Rules, 1976. Section 23 mandates that a document must be presented for registration within four months of their execution; and Section 25 empowers the Registrar to accord registration within a further four months if he is satisfied that their presentation within the period of four months was not possible "owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident". Section 32 prescribes that the presentation of a document for registration can be carried out by any of its executants or claimants/beneficiaries thereof, or such persons, representatives/assigns/attorney(s). Section 34 thereafter envisages that the registering officer should conduct an inquiry at which the concerned persons should be present. This inquiry is expected to be completed in the eight months mentioned above, but the Proviso of Section 34 apparently extends the taking of the final decision whether to permit or refuse registration arguably by another four months, in the circumstances mentioned in the statute. It is important to underscore that the appearance of the persons involved/interested in the registration need not be simultaneous. There appears to be no foundation for the argument of Mr. Singhla that the registration must be allowed on the same day as the presentation. At the present juncture it appears that the documents were presented for registration and therefore what remain was to satisfy the Sub-Registrar on any queries that may have been raised. It is common place that there is a hiatus between the presentation of documents for registration and their delivery to the holder of the Registration Slip. No provision has been shown to me either under the Registration Act or under the Delhi Registration Rules, 1976 which proscribe the delivery of documents after eight months of their presentation for registration. The Registration Act prescribes that a document must be presented for registration within four months of its execution and thereafter be done within a further period of four months but with special leave.
7. Since it is not in dispute that the documents have been executed on 27th February, 2002 and presented on that very date, there would be no impediment so far as the period of eight months is concerned. A reading of Rule 33 of the Delhi Registration Rules, 1976 makes it amply clear that what is expected of the Registering Officer is that the inquiry pertaining to the execution of the document should be done "with as little delay as possible". This explains the usual interregnum between presentation and delivery of documents. The statement in the letter dated 11.3.2002 for Registration Slips had been issued is extremely telltale. Rule 41 of the Delhi Registration Rules, 1976 mandates that these Registration Slips should be taken back contemporaneously with the delivery of the documents.
8. It is trite to state that if a plaintiff approaches the Court with inordinate delay, and where such delay is irreconcilable with normal human behavior and reaction, this factor would in itself constitute sufficient reason to reject the prayer for ad interim discretionary relief.
9. Mr. Singhla has contended that the balance of convenience lies in the Plaintiffs' favor. Even though this consideration is rendered otiose since I am of the view that a prima facie case does not exist, in my opinion it needs to be stated that where the Court is confronted with stamped and duly executed documents, which have also been subsequently registered, the balance of convenience is in favor of ensuring that the beneficiary under the document enjoys its fruits and the property dealt with in it without fetters and restrictions. Moreover, the doctrine of Us pendens adequately safeguards the possibility of the Plaintiff succeeding in in its action.
10. In this conspectus of the case, I am of the view that the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 filed by the Plaintiffs' is wholly without merit and it is dismissed. Arguments have been heard for over one hour on two occasions, and the Plaintiffs have failed on all counts. The Plaintiffs shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs within four weeks from today.