Delhi High Court
Shri Gurjeet Singh vs Shri Sarabjeet Singh & Others on 21 July, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 DELHI 29, 2009 (2) ALL LJ NOC 323, 2009 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 433 (DEL), 2009 (2) AIR KAR R 211, 2009 A I H C (NOC) 198 (DEL), (2008) 153 DLT 12
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ IA NO.8321/2008 IN CS(OS)1914/2003
% Date of decision : 21.7.2008
SHRI GURJEET SINGH ....... Plaintiff
Through: Nemo.
Versus
SHRI SARABJEET SINGH & OTHERS....... Defendant
Through : Ms. Geeta Dhingra, Advocate
for Defendant No. 1
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported YES
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. The suit was instituted for partition of property no. E-I/23,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Vide order dated 2.8.2005 a preliminary
decree for partition was passed declaring the plaintiff Gurjeet Singh
and defendant no.1 Sarabjeet Singh to be holding equal share in the
property. On 8.8.2005 a final decree of partition was passed and
decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up. The record reveals that
the Registrar of the Court thereafter called upon the parties to file
the valuation report from government approved valuer so that stamp
duty for drawing up the decree may be calculated. The parties filed
a valuation report but the Registrar was not satisfied with the same.
IA.No.8321.08 in CS(OS) 1914.03 Page 1 of 5
Notice was issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority
( CCRA ) Delhi, for furnishing the valuation of the property. The
valuation report appears to have been received from CCRA in
January, 2008, which was accepted by the Registrar and parties
were asked to deposit the stamp papers in accordance with the said
valuation report given by CCRA. Upon deposit of stamp papers,
draft decree was drawn, and after requisite approvals final decree
was engrossed on the stamp papers. In accordance with order 20
rule 7, the decree, even though drawn up in or about March, 2008,
bore the date of judgment i.e. 8.8.2005.
2. The defendant no.1 thereafter applied for release of original
decree for enabling its registration. Following the practice direction
contained in order dated 24.9.2007 in CS(OS) 206/2006, the original
decree engrossed on stamp papers was ordered to be released to
the Defendant no.1 and was finally delivered to defendant no.1 on
3.5.2008.
3. The defendant no.1 presented the decree for registration
to the Sub Registrar V, Mehrauli, New Delhi, on 20th June, 2008, but
the Registrar has refused to register the same since the decree bore
the date of 8th August, 2005 and the presentation was beyond four
months of the said date. Defendant no.1 has filed this application
seeking the directions against the Sub Registrar-V, Mehrauli, New
Delhi.
IA.No.8321.08 in CS(OS) 1914.03 Page 2 of 5
4. Section 23 of the Registration Act 2008, provides that no
documents other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless
presented within four months from the date of its execution.
However, the proviso thereto makes an exception in respect of a
decree. A decree can be presented within four months of the day it
becomes final. It is significant that period of four months for
registration under section 23 runs from date of execution. Date of
execution of a decree would be the date on which it is actually
signed and is different from the date of decree. The date of decree,
by a legal fiction contained in order 20 rule 7 is the date of
judgment. Thus, the time under section 23 would in any case run
from the date of actual execution and not from date of decree.
Further, the provisio to section 23 is as under :
"Provided that a copy a of a decree or order may be presented
within four months from the date on which the decree or order
was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from
the day on which it becomes final".
Again the words used are "day on which decree or order was
made" as distinct from date of decree. The day on which the decree
was made would be the day of signing thereof. It was so held in
Mohammad Vs. M. ( 41 CWN 945 ). Thus the Sub-Registrar was
wrong in taking the date on which the decree was made as the date
of the decree. Unfortunately, the decree in the present case does
not appear to show the date of making, i.e. the date on which it was
actually signed.
5. It has been held in Raj Kumar Dey & Ors. Vs. Tarpada Dey
(AIR 1987 SC 2195), applying the doctrines of ACTUS CURIAE
IA.No.8321.08 in CS(OS) 1914.03 Page 3 of 5
NEMINEM GRAVABIT - An act of court shall prejudice no man and
LEX NON COGIT AD IMPOSSIBILIA - The law does not compel a
man to do that which he cannot possibly perform, that the period
during which the Arbitral Award was lying in court and further the
period during which there was an injunction with respect thereto, is
to be excluded while computing the period of four months for
registration.
6. This Judgment was followed by this court in Madhukar Goel
vs. MS Goel (AIR 1998 Del-257) again in relation to Arbitral Award.
Another Single Judge of this court in Anurag Malik vs. Amit Malik
126 (2006) DLT 114 held that the period of four months, under the
proviso to Section 23 begins to run from the date the decree
becomes executable.
7. Applying the same principles to the present case, the
Defendant No. 1, even after the day on which the decree was made
could not have presented the decree for registration before 3rd May,
2008 when the same was released by this court. The defendant no.1
ought not to suffer and hence, for the purposes of section 23 of the
Registration Act, the time for registration will run only from the date
of release of decree.
8. Accordingly, Sub Registrar V, Mehrauli, New Delhi, is directed
to register the decree, subject to other objections, if any. Let the
copy of this order be given dasti to the defendant no.1.
IA.No.8321.08 in CS(OS) 1914.03 Page 4 of 5
9. The Registry to also, in future, while making the decree and/or
releasing decree for registration, to mention endorse thereon, the
date of making/signing thereof and the date of release thereof, to
enable the Registrar concerned to accordingly compute the period
of registration.
Application stands disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
July 21, 2008. K IA.No.8321.08 in CS(OS) 1914.03 Page 5 of 5