Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The lower Appellate Court considered the oral evidence, the expert evidence and the circumstances of the case and then came to the conclusion that the signatures purporting to be those of Nawab Ali, defendant No. 1, on the arbitration agreement and the disputed sale deed, were in fact made by Nawab Ali and no one else. This conclusion of the lower Appellate Court is well founded and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case. As a matter of fact, the evidence was all one sided and in favour of the plaintiff on this point. One Prakash (PW-2) who was in service at Tahsil Amroha, had sold the two stamps of the disputed sale deed on 20-8-68, and he clearly said that he had sold the stamps to Nawab Ali, defendant No. 1, whom he knew from before. Nair Hussain (PW-3) was the scribe of the arbitration agreement (Paper No. 25. A-l) and stated that it was signed by Nawab Ali, defendant No. 1, in his presence. Ram Nath (PW-4) was the arbitrator and stated that Nawab Ali, defendant No. 1, had signed the arbitration agreement. He added that he had given his award to the effect that Jagdish Saran and Bal Krishna should sell their two shops to the mother of Nawab Ali, and Nawab Ali and Husn Bano should sell their house to Suit. Ram Murti Devi, plaintiff. He further said that the title deeds of the house (Paper Nos. 105-A.l and 106-A.l) were handed over to him by Nawab Ali and he gave them to the husband of Smt. Ram Murti Devi. He also stated about the execution of the disputed sale deed by Nawab Ali defendant No. 1 and a Burqa woman, and that it was presented in the office of the Sub-Registrar, the same day on which the sale deed of the two shops was presented in that office. The witness added that when the turn of the registration of the disputed sale deed came, the defendants went away on a pretext and did not come back. These witnesses could not be shaken in any manner. Jagdish Saran (PW-5) son of the plaintiff, proved the entire case of the plaintiff. There was no reason to doubt or disbelieve this cogent evidence. This direct evidence was sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the arbitration agreement and the disputed sale deed were signed by Nawab Ali, defendant No. 1, and by no one else. The evidence given on behalf of the defendants was interested and negative in character. Barring the handwriting expert, the remaining three witnesses, Nawab Ali, Shaukat Ali and Husn Bano were closely related and interested persons. The explanation given by Nawab Ali and Shaukat Ali for the presence of the title-deeds of the house in possession of Jagdish Saran son of the plaintiff, was not at all convincing. Those sale deeds were not required for describing boundaries of the shops. Nawab Ali made an unsuccessful attempt to say that he did not know how to sign in Hindi or Urdu scripts. He had to admit that he had read these languages up to Intermediate standard. The defendant's evidence was rightly not accepted. The plaintiffs evidence did not deserve to be rejected on the ground that the thumb marks appearing on the arbitration agreement and the disputed sale deed were not of the real Husn Bano. The statements of the witnesses showed that they did not know the Burqa woman had put her thumb-marks and had relied on the representation made by Nawab Ali about her identity.

14. Thus, the position emerges that the disputed sale deed was executed by Nawab Ali, defendant No. 1, and in fact it was not executed by Smt. Husn Bano, defendant No. 2. The plaintiff was duped so far as the execution purporting to be by Smt. Husn Bano, defendant No. 2, was concerned because Nawab Ali wrongly represented that the woman in Burqa was Husn Bano.

15. Now the question for consideration is whether a direction can be given to the Sub-Registrar, Amroha under Section 77 of the Registration Act to register the sale deed so far it has been executed by Nawab Ali, defendant No. 1, in favour of the plaintiff. The title deeds to the house in question show that Nawab Ali had purchased 3/4th portion of the house from the previous owner and Smt. Husn Bano had purchased the remaining 1/4th share in the house. Nawal Ali admitted in his cross-examination that his share in the house was 3/4th and that of Smt. Husn Bano was 1/4th only. These two owners could execute separate sale deeds in respect of their shares in the house. No law made it obligatory on these owners to execute a joint sale deed in favour of the transferee. Section 35 of the Registration Act provides that where there are several executants of a document, the registering officer shall register the document as to the persons who admit the execution of the same and shall refuse to register the document as to the person who denies the execution thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 77 provides that the provisions contained in sub-sections. (2) and (3) of Section 75 shall mutatis mutandis apply to all documents presented for registration in accordance with a decree under Section 77(1). Section 75(2) refers to Sections 58, 59 and 60. Section 60(1) inter alia refers to the provisions of Section 35 of the Registration Act. In view of the applicability of these provisions, the principle that a document can be registered as to the person admitting execution of the document should be held applicable to registration of a deed under Section 77 of the Registration Act. The answer to the question posed at the beginning of the paragraph is in the affirmative.