Law Commission Report
Section 30(2) Of The Indian Registration Act,1908
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA TI-IIRTY--FIRST REPORT [section 30(2) of the Indian Registration Act 1908- Extension to Delhi] May, 1967 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA . MINISTRY OF LAW rmm'mmn¢mAn¥rHzaENI!:AnMArAnlR.nov:mIMnmo?mmAm:H!a,Mnv!o IOAD_,li.IwDlI.iHIANDPlJFI.lBEIl3BY nil Mnzmamor rUa:.1c.a.'.rI::-N's, mm, 1967 Chairman Law Commission, 5. Jprbagh, New Delhi- 3. _ 29th May, I967. Shri P. Govinda Manon, Minister of Law, New Delhi. My dear Minister. I have great pleasure in forwarding herewith the Thirty--first Report of the Law Commission on section 30(2) of the Indian Registration Act, I908---Extension to the Registrar of Delhi. 2. At the Eighty-third meeting of the Law Com- mission held from 22nd to 25th February, 1967, the Law Commission decided that section 30(2) of the Indian Registration Act should be extended to tht' Re- gistrar of Delhi. The decision was taken after a con- sideration of the suggestions received in that behalf. 3. At the Eighty-fifth meeting of the Commission held on the 28th April, 1967, the Commission decided that a separate Report be submitted on the subject. A ' draft Report on the subject was prepared and circulated to Members at the meeting, and approved at the same meeting, with some minor changes. 4. The draft Report was revised. and the revised draft Report (copies whereof had been circulated to Members) was again approved at the Eight}/--sixth meeting of the Commission on the r5th May, 1957- Certain very minor changes suggested at the meeting were carried out, and the Report was signed by the Members at the same meeting on the 20th May, 1967. 5. Our thanks are due to our Secretary Mr. P. M. Bakshi for the help he has given in preparing this Report. Yours sincerely, J. L. KAPUR. REPORT ON SECTION 30(2) OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, I908----EXTENSION TC! DELHI C 0 N T E N T S PARAGRAPH SUBJECT PAGE No. 1-2 Subject--matter of the Report --- Suggestion relating to section 30(2) Registration Act . . . 1-2 3 Why the subject taken up separately . . . 2 4 Points in favour of the suggested change . . 2-3 5 Safeguards provided at present . . . . 3 6-9 sections 64 to 67 considered . . . . 35-4 to Importance of accurate description . . . 4. I I Derivative Registration 4 I2 Recommendation . . . . - - 4- 5 13 Appendix . . - » - -. -- ' REPQRT ON SECIFION 30(2) OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1:908---EX_1'ENSION TO DELHL 1.
The subj_eot--matt.er of this Report may be briefly stated. :'ubjeci- Under' section 30(2) of the Indian Registration Actl, the matte"
Registrar of "a district including a Presidency town" may 's}:fg1;'e°s'I';'gr'l' receive and register any document referred to in section 28 man-ng to without "regard to the situation in any part of India of the section property to which the document relates. This is an excep-- 30(2) _ , tion to the ordinary mfle in section 30(1). read with section fifgfili"-*"°"
28, under which (to state. the matter very broadly), the ' e power of a registering officer is confined to documents re-
lacing to property situated wholly or partly within. his jurisdiction".
(There is a special provision relating to certain docu- ments-", but the documents that usually require registrar- tioni fall outside it, and that provision need not therefore be considered).
2. Section 30(2), however (as adapted in 1947-), remains confined-" to the three Presidency-townsfi. Now, 3 sugges- tion' has been made that it should be extended to Delhi. It is this suggestion which is the subject-matter of this Report".
We quote section» 311(2) below, for convenience of re- ference.
1. Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908).
2. Section 30 (I) read with section. 28 and with section 17(1) (-3) to (us), section 17(2). Iii (a) (b) (c), etc, Indian Registration Act, 1908 [16 of 1908).
3. Section 3o{i), read. with-section 29. Indian Registration Act, 1908.
4. section 17(1) Cu) to section I7(I_'J,(e), Indian Registration Act, 1.903.
5. Paragraph 1, supra.
6. Cf. Rustomji, Registration Act, ('I939 Edn.), page 207 for old section.
7 .'I--'he suggegticn is at-'S. No. I in Law Commissi9n's file 'No. F. I(1~)}6'3- LC, and there are similar or ozlnnev.-ted suggestions at S. No. 8 (Suggest- tion of Ihc Delhi Administration), and S. No. I4'. in that file.
8. Detailed ciiscussionof the suggestion is in paragraph 4, infra.
Sectim: 30(2) as it stood before the Adaptation of Laws Order, I948.
"{2} The Registrar of a dis-
trict including a Presi-
dency-town and the Re-
gistrar of the Lahore Dis- trict may receive and re-
gister any document rc-
crrcd to in section 2.8 without regard to the situation in any part of Sacrimi 39(2) as it stands now.
"(2) The Registrar of a dis-
trict including a Presi-
dency-townijxnay receive and register any docu-
mcntfircferrcd toiin sec-
tion 28 without regard to the situation in any part of India ofthc pro-
perty to which the docu-
Brizish India of the pro- men: relates."
petty to which the document relates." | _ I
3. This suggestio-n1 was received after the submission Wh the Subiéct of the Law Commissions Report on the commcntsreceived Efifiiflaigy on the Sixth Report (Registration Act}? The suggestion ' is not by way of comment on the Sixth Report, but is an independent one. The point raised also seemed to deserve urgent consideration. It has, therefore, been taken up separately. Any other changes that may appear to us to be desirable in section 30(2) will be dealt with later, when we give our Report on the comments received on the Sixth Report'. .
Points in 4. In our opinion, the following points justify the sug- favour of the gcsted change'.
suggested change' First-, Delhi is a cosmopolitan place with a population representing inhabitants of numerous States of India as well as of foreign countries. Transactions involving ima movable property situated elsewhere but entered into between parties resident in Delhi are increasing, and are likely to increase further. Secondly, Delhi is fast deve- loping as an important centre of business, and for that reason also, transactions (like mortgages) between resi- dents of Delhi, though affecting property outside it, are not rare. Thirdly, legal talent and draftsrnanship of a fairly high order is available in Delhi, so that description of the situation of the property5 may be expected to have been done with care and precision. Fourthly, Delhi is the seat of the Central Government, and the Central Govern- ment is entering into several transactions alfecting im- movable properties situated all over India. Instead of the I. Paragraph 2, supra.
2. Sixth Report of the Law Commission (Registration Act).
3. Comments received by the Government of india on the Sixth Report of the Iaiw Commission (Registration Act.) have thcmsclves been referred to the Law Cormnission, and are under the consideration of Ehfi Clorrunission.
4. Paragraph 2., Supra.
5. As to need for accuracy of derption, see paragraph to, infra.
3parties being required to go to the Sub-Registrar within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, (as at present)', it would certainly be advantageous if the Registrar of Delhi is also empowered to register any document relating to any property wherever situate in India.
5. Since registration under section 30 (2) has an all India Slfeflltards eifectg, the Registration Act provides several safeguards'-' to ensure that the document registered in a place to which section 30(2) applies will be traceable at the place where a search is likely to be made----usua1ly, the place Where the property is situated.
6. Under the provisions of section 6?, on a document being registered under section 30(2), a copy of the docu- ment and of the endorsements and certificate thereon is to be forwarded to every Registrar within whose district any part of the property is situate. Further steps to be taken by the Registrar receiving the copy, etc., are to be found in section 66(1); briefly, he has to forward a Memo- randum to each Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property is situate. The Sub-Registrar, in his turn, has to file it in Book No. 1 under section 66(4).
The procedure is analogous to that provided by section 65 in relation to a document relating to immovable property situated in more district than one. Compare section 64 also.
7. As has been stated', the effect of sections 64, 65 and 66 is that information is conveyed to the Registrars or Sub-Registrars of every place where the document ought to be registered, and thus all the information which it is the object of a register to afford is to be found in those difierent places.
8. Compliance with section 67 should be full and prompt in order to attract the benefit of the provisions relating to "notice" in the Transfer of Property Act"-7 which are ap- plicable" only when the memorandum contemplated by section 67 read with sections 66 (1) and 66(4) is transmitted by the receiving Registrar to each Sub--Registrar concert» ed and filed by the latter in Book No. 1 (Book No. 1 is Section 28, Indian Begisttation Act, 1903. Paragraph 1, supra.
Seesection 67 read with section8 66 (1), 66 (4.) and gr (1), Indian Registration Act, 1908. These supplement section 51(2).
4. See Paragraphs 6 and 7_. infi-a.
. See Hariliam 1?. Shea Days! Ma! (1538) I.L.R.II All 1 6 1 I 1 (P. C.) on appeal from I.L.R. 7 Alf. 590. ' 3 ' 4 ' 42'
6. See section 3. Definition of "nctioe"_ Transfer of Property Act, 1332.
7. S . See Mulls, Transfer of Property Act 3955), page 37_ "E.
2.
3. Lil Explanation I, latter half.
provided 1:
pre sent.
Sections 64 to 67 consi-
dercd.
Cf. Banares Bank Ltd. v. Har Prosad. A.I.R. 1936 Lah, 482, 483 {D.B.jI.
frolic rtancc of accurate description.
Derivative I egifixaiion, Recommen-
dance.4
"Register of non-t'estamentni-3r documents. relating to inn..- lI'.lD'i|'Elble pmperty"}3.
9. If the formalities required' by section 67 read with the preceding section" are not fuiiilled, then registration under section 33(2) would not o crate as ''notice'' under the Transfer of Property Act. e whole purpose of the Registration Act is, as was observed by Lord Atkinson during the course of the arguments in a Privy Council case', to ensure that people may come to the Registering office and get information as to encumbrances oi proper-tj.r.
if}. It is, therefore, necessary that description of the property should be as accurate as possible. As to the im- portance of accurate description, s~ reference to the 1lI1d.El'- mentioned case' would be enough where the foilowing ob- servations occur :----
"The object of registering a document is to give notice to the world that such a document has been executed and is in force. Persons who may seek to acquire any property covered by such. an instrument are entitled to have the instruruent so -clearly worded that they can, while searching the register, come upon the deed quickly and have no doubt as to its contents. The object of the statute would be to as great extent nullified and innocent persons exposed to great hard- ship and loss if they (the words of the section) could be treated as purely directory."
11. Registration under section ET is anaiogous to that under section 65. The latter was described by Lord Moul- ton (in the course of argument in a Privy CO-l.l.1'1Ci1 case)?"
as "derivative registration".
12; After a consideration of the various aspects". we have come to the conclusion that there is snfficient jnstification for extending section 3|} (2) to Delhi. We, therefore, re- commend that section 30(2)" of the Indians Registration Act, 1908-, may be extended to Delhi, by a suitable amendment.
1. Section 51(1). Indian Registration Act, 1908.
1. Paragraphs 6 and 7, supra.
3. Ghacfmlingam v. Cllezriar, (I927) 4-7(E.a1cnrta Law Journal 4:29, 430,- I.'L.R. 6 Rangoon 113 ; A.I.R. I923 P. C. 44 ; (See Rmtomfiti, Refit» fl.ar=D::| Act, 193.9, page 173, where the arguments are referred to}.
4. Safipedfi-Iohnmd v. Ma:-Immsnad zalcar, (ices) LI...R. 3: A11. 323. 5246'.
1;. MotPmmPn1sad v. Chandra Narnia, I.L.R. 48 Cal. 509 ,' 25 €.'..W.H. 9&5 ; 23 Bombay Law Reporter 629, 630 5. (See 1?.:1st-:JInji,, Rc::i9.t£IiIinn.-- Act, I959; Page 369, citing thc argument)-
6. Paragraphs 4 to 11, Eufim.
513. In order to give a concrete picture of our recommem Appendix.
dationl, we have in an Appendix shown it in the form of a draft amendment to the existing Act.
-.1. J. L. KAP'UR----Chairman.
2. K. G. DATAR '% 1
3. s. s. DULAT '1 Member-s
4. T. K. TOPE
5. RAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE P. M. BAKSHI, Joint Secretary and Legnslative Counsul New Delhi, The 20th May, 1967.
1. Paragraph 12, supra.
APPENDIX Recommendation as shown in the form of a draft amendment (This is a rough draft only) 15" '9°3 In section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, for sub-section (2), substitute the following sub-section, namely :--
"(2} The Registrar of a district including a Presi- dency-town, and the Registrar of the Delhi District may register any document referred to in section 28 without regard to the situation in any part of India of the property to which the document relates."6
GMGIrND--T.S.s.--33 M. of Law ( )--u-n-19!,- I 3 an