Whether plaintiff is required to pay Advaloram court fees if he has only filed suit for registration of sale deed?

 In this case, plaintiff is seeking appropriate directions to the authorities to register the sale deed dated 1st February, 2011 and thus, it was not a comprehensive suit, being not coupled with any other reliefs. In the given set of facts, the subject matter of the dispute being not susceptible of monetary valuation, it is subject to valuation under clause (j) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Court-fees Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5426 of 2012

Decided On: 05.07.2019

Prakash Nandkishor Bhalke  Vs.  The Joint District Registrar, Photozinco Premises 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

Citation: 2020(1) MHLJ 646

Print Page

Whether Sub Registrar can refuse to register document on the ground that no consideration passed between parties?

As regards the second point, it is not correct that there is a finding that Rs. 32,000 was not paid in cash. The learned Subordinate Judge considered that a finding on this point was not material in a suit under Section 77. It was merely in passing that be remarked that he was not prepared to believe this story. He has, however, given no reason for this opinion. The fact is that the parties do not appear to have regarded the establishment of the payment in question as essential in this case, and, although several witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs who would in the ordinary course have seen the alleged payment, only two of them spoke of it in examination-in-cbief, namely-Sheonandan Singh and Chetman Pande. The real point for consideration was the genuineness of the sale-deed, its validity and the passing of consideration were immaterial. In these circumstances, no weight can attach to the opinion expressed by the learned Subordinate Judge and certainly it cannot be made the basis of an argument that it is extremely unlikely that without receiving this money the defendants first party would execute the document in question and allow it to pass into the hands of the plaintiffs.

Patna High Court

Jogesh Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Ramchandar Prasad Singh And Ors. on 23 March, 1950

Equivalent citations: AIR 1950 Pat 370

Bench: Reuben, Jamuar

Print Page

Whether question of title is decided in suit U/S 77 of Registration Act?

A suit under Section 77 does not certainly decide the title, although the question whether the alleged executant had actually executed the deed is a definite factor in coming to a decision whether he passed any title by executing the deed. Thus when the court decides the issue that there was actually execution, the transferee, would not generally be barred by this decision and he will have to file a fresh suit for declaration of his title and in that suit the issue of execution of the deed will be a major issue. The question of fraud etc. may also be a relevant fact in connection with the execution. As in the case of Baikuntha Kumar Sil v. Sarat Ch. Nath it has been held that any other transferee is not a necessary party, it follows that the issue regarding execution will not be a res judicata against him. But if the other transferee is actually made a party and a decree is passed against him, is he not entitled to a right of appeal?

Calcutta High Court

Sk. Md. Ismail vs Sk. Anwar Ali And Others on 12 February, 1991

Equivalent citations: AIR 1991 Cal 391

Bench: A K Bhattacharj

Print Page

Whether decree passed in suit under S 77 of Registration is binding on sub Registrar even though he is not party to suit?

Lastly, the non-addition to the sub-registrar (as) a party would not in this case he fatal to the suit although Shri Banarjee urges this point in support of the appeal. It was a statutory suit against the decision of a public Officer and as such the officer deciding the matter had hardly any duty to justify his decision. The order of the court of a competent jurisdiction was binding on him in spite of his non-joinder as a party.

Calcutta High Court

Sk. Md. Ismail vs Sk. Anwar Ali And Others on 12 February, 1991

Equivalent citations: AIR 1991 Cal 391

Bench: A K Bhattacharj

Print Page

Whether Sub Registrar can decide validity of document presented before him for Registration?

Reading these sections together it is clear that the only person, who can present a document for registration or institute a suit is the person claiming under the document, and the only person who is entitled to deny the execution is the person who is purported to be the executant of it. The scope of Section 77 of the Registration Act is limited only to the enquiry as to whether the document has been executed by the person alleged to have executed it. In the case of Dwijendra Narain Roy v. Jogish Chandra Dey it was observed at page 47 "it may be conceded that in a suit instituted under Section 77, the Court is concerned not with the validity but with the genuineness of the document sought to be registered, i.e., whether the document has been executed by the person by whom it is alleged to have been executed; the question of its validity must be determined in a suit) properly framed for the purpose." The case cited in the above case shows that even a defence as to the executing power of the alleged executant or the document being one void for want of consideration; fraud or undue influence is foreign to a suit under Section 77

Calcutta High Court

Baikuntha Kumar Shil vs Sarat Chandra Nath And Ors. on 23 February, 1925

Equivalent citations: AIR 1925 Cal 1257

Print Page