The Priority Principle: How Section 50 of the Registration Act Protects Property Rights

 Understanding why registered documents trump unregistered ones in Indian property law

Property disputes are among the most complex and emotionally charged legal battles in India. At the heart of many such disputes lies a fundamental question: when multiple documents claim rights over the same property, which one prevails? Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides a clear answer that has shaped Indian property law for over a century.

The Golden Rule of Property Documentation

Print Page

Important provisions of Civil minor Acts(Part 2)

 

1) Important provisions of Registration Act 1908.

https://www.lawweb.in/2022/09/important-provisions-of-registration.html

2) Important provisions of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

https://www.lawweb.in/2020/04/important-provisions-of-mental.html

3) Notes on Hindu succession Act 1956 as amended in the year 2005.

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/05/notes-on-hindu-succession-act-1956.html

Print Page

Important provisions of Registration Act 1908

17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.—

(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;

(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;

(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and

(d) lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;

Print Page

Whether a document can be registered after four month if it was presented within that time?

From the above, it is clear that no document other than a will shall  be accepted for registration unless presented to the Registering Authority within four months from the date of its execution. In the case on hand, it is obvious that the subject lease of agreement was executed on 20.11.2019 and appears to be presented before the Registering Authority and on acceptance and stated to have been orally given various dates to attend for registration drawn the Challan bearing No.5149659836504 on

12.03.2020, which is within the prescribed period of four months from the date of its execution and the actual date of four months would be completed on 20.03.2020. Though the statute makes it imperative to present an instrument for registration within four months from the date of its execution, no time is fixed within which a deed presented and accepted for registration must be registered; and, indeed, from the nature of the requirements of the Act, the period within which the registration must be completed could not have been fixed. Earlier, this

Court, in W.P. No.313 of 2020 on 01.10.2020, dealt with the similar

aspect and held at para 10 as under:

“….Since there is no period of limitation to register the

document, once it was presented before the authority

concerned within four (4) months after its execution and

when it was accepted for registration, registering the

document at a later stage i.e, on 31.08.2019 (after lapse of

22 years), cannot be faulted.” {Para 10}

 TELANGANA HIGH COURT

 WRIT PETITION No.15986 OF 2020

 Tata Consumer Products Limited and another Vs The State of Telangana

Coram: SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

Dated 10.06.2022

Print Page

Whether recital in power of attorney that immovable property should not be sold below specific amount will invalidate sale deed?

 In other words, proceeding on the basis that the second defendant had a duty to not sell the property below Rs.55,000/-, in terms of P-1, the breach of duty to not sell below Rs.55,000/-, when the second defendant sold the property for Rs.30,000/-, cannot invalidate the sale or render it null and void. A perusal of the power of attorney will make it clear that any restriction on the price is conspicuous by its absence in the power of attorney.

Supreme Court

JUSTICE K. M. JOSEPH JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

AMAR NATH Vs. GIAN CHAND AND ANR.

Print Page

How to prove valid cancellation of power of attorney?

 This correspondence between the plaintiff and the second defendant, in our view, would be fatal to the plaintiff’s case that the plaintiff had cancelled the power of attorney.

59. While on cancellation, we may notice that the plaintiff, in his deposition, has stated that he had cancelled the power of attorney at Mehre and there itself was the Office of the Sub-Registrar located. He has admitted that he did not get the power of attorney cancelled at the Sub-Registrar Office. Even, more importantly, he has admitted to not having sent any notice of cancellation. The only evidence consists of a statement of PW1 that the first defendant was aware of the cancellation and the statement of PW6, who had said that the first defendant was also there on 02.02.1987, when on two papers a line was drawn to signify the cancellation. The Trial Court and also the appellate court have relied upon the DX sent by the plaintiff himself, which appears to undermine the evidence about the cancellation on 02.02.1987. The High Court should not have, at any rate, disturbed the said finding in a Second Appeal. In such circumstances, the conclusion is inevitable that the case of the plaintiff that power of attorney stood cancelled, in the manner done on 02.02.1987, cannot be accepted. At any rate, we find it difficult to accept the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant, who is the third party, could be attributed any knowledge of the surrender or the alleged cancellation on 02.02.1987, even assuming for a moment that we could lend credence to the plaintiff’s version in this regard that the second defendant surrendered the power of attorney. We need not pronounce on the question whether the power of attorney being registered, it could be cancelled only by a registered power of attorney. This we say as even in the absence of a registered cancellation of the power of attorney, there must be cancellation and it must further be brought to the notice of the third party at any rate as already noticed. Such a cancellation is not made out.

Supreme Court

JUSTICE K. M. JOSEPH JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

AMAR NATH Vs. GIAN CHAND AND ANR.

Print Page

Whether the owner of immovable property can challenge the execution of the sale deed if the sub-registrar fails to verify the original power of attorney at the time of registration of the document?

 The second defendant, according to the plaintiff, could not execute the sale deed in the absence of the original power of attorney, and the sub registrar was supposed to verify the aspect from the second defendant under Sections 32, 33 and 34 of the Registration Act. The sale deed was without authority. The second defendant ‘was not competent to transfer the possession’. The special power of attorney is deemed to have been cancelled in the eye of law since it was handed over to the plaintiff.

25. For reasons, which we have indicated, Section 32(c) read with Section 33 and Section 34(2)(c) are interrelated and they would have no application in regard to the document presented for registration by a power of attorney holder who is also the executant of the document. In other words, there is really no need for the production of the original power of attorney, when the document is presented for registration by the person standing in the shoes of the second defendant in this case as he would be covered by the provisions of Section 32(a) as he has executed the document though on the strength of the power of attorney. To make it even further clear, the inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not.

28. Thus, the aforesaid provision deals with situations in which the Registering Authority refuses the registration. If the registering Authority is satisfied about the identity of the person and that he admits the execution of the document, it may not be a part of the Registrar’s duty to enquire further. The registration by itself will not bring the curtains down on questions relating to title to the property. The very purport of the Law of Registration is to usher in and maintain a transparent system of maintaining documents relating to property rights. It puts the world on notice about certain transactions which are compulsorily registrable Section 17 interalia. The law also makes available facility of registering documents at the option of the person (Section 18).

29. Section 57 of the Act provides for keeping Books No. 1 and 2 and the Index relating to Book No.1 open for inspection to any person applying to inspect the same. Book No.1, it must be noticed, as provided in Section 51, is a register of non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property. Book No.2 is a record of reasons for refusal to register.

32. On an analysis of the provisions, we have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the plaintiff that the non-production of the original power of attorney by the second defendant, was fatal to a valid registration being effected. The understanding of the Courts regarding Section 18A is also erroneous. Section 18A was enacted only to ensure that the copying process is hastened, as noticed from the Objects and Reasons. 

Supreme Court

JUSTICE K. M. JOSEPH JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

AMAR NATH Vs. GIAN CHAND AND ANR.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5797 OF 2009

28th January 2022

Author: K. M. JOSEPH, J.

Citation: 2022 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 94

Print Page

Whether the presence of purchaser is necessary for the registration of sale deed?

So far as the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 is

concerned, the law requires presentation of the document to be

registered at the proper registration office by following categories

of persons:“

32. Persons to present documents for

registration.—Except in the cases

mentioned in [Sections 31, 88 and 89],

every document to be registered under

this Act, whether such registration be

compulsory or optional, shall be

presented at the proper registration

office,(

a) by some person executing or claiming

under the same, or, in the case of a copy

of a decree or order, claiming under the

decree or order, or

(b) by the representative or assign of such

a person, or

(c) by the agent of such a person,

representative or assign, duly authorised

by powerofattorney

executed and

authenticated in manner hereinafter

mentioned.”

7. The plaintiff has not disputed that the vendor or seller i.e.

Madegowda had executed the document (first sale deed) and we

do not find any doubt expressed over his presence before the

Registering Authority. No case has been made out either that

the deed of conveyance carried any collateral obligation on the

part of the purchaser, in this case being Manchegowda (since

deceased). The plaintiff has not made out a case of acquiring

title under the principle of part performance as incorporated in

Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. No pleading

to that effect in the plaint has been made out.

8. We find from the judgment of the Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court that the respective parties had led evidence of

execution and subsequent registration of the deeds but the first

two courts did not reject the contention of the second set of

defendants that there was no execution by Madegowda (since

deceased) of the deed of sale to Manchegowda (since deceased).

The case has been decided in favour of the plaintiff on the

ground that the buyer was not present at the time of

registration of sale deed. There is evidence to the effect that the

second defendant (Manchegowda) had not come to the office of

the SubRegistrar

at the time of execution of the sale deed. But

as per law as it stood at the material point of time, there was no

necessity of presence of purchaser at the Registration Office

during the registration of sale deed. The deed was executed by

Madegowda and that aspect has not been disputed. The deed in

question does not fall within Sections 31, 88 and 89 of the

Registration Act. Section 32 of the said Act does not require

presence of both parties to a deed of sale when the same is

presented for registration.

(NonReportable)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3975 OF 2010

H.P.Puttaswamy Vs  Thimmamma 

ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J.

Dated:24th January, 2020.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to record lis pendens in revenue record?

We do not find that there is any error in the said decision and rather the said decision taken by the State Government, as contained in the impugned circular, is in conformity with the provision of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, since section 148 of the Code sets out the particulars which should be included in the record of rights and it do not stipulate any other particulars to be included, except in accordance with the decision by the State Government, which it can prescribe by the rules. It is the State Government which has made it clear that the pendency of any proceedings or suit before any court or any other quasi judicial authority, does not amount to any kind of right in praesenti and a right of litigant comes into existence only on final adjudication by the concerned Court where the lis is pending. Since the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code itself do not provide for inclusion of a lis pendens in the record of right and the State Government had rather reflected its decision not to include the same in the record of right in the backdrop of the fact that the revenue records are mere reflections of the rights claimed by a person in respect of any immovable property and being reported to the revenue authority and such entries are subject to adjudication of title rights by Court of competent jurisdiction, the said decision of the State Government cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious specifically when section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the properties which are involved in any lis and the principle recognized in the said section put restrictions on the rights of the parties to a suit or proceeding to transfer the property, which is the subject matter of the said litigation. In any case, the object of Section 52 is not to make such transfers made in violation of the said provision to be void ab initio, but are only voidable at the instance of the party who has been prejudiced. The State amendment to section 52 further protects the interest of the land holders in the State and whenever the notices of pending suits or proceedings referred to in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is given under section 18 of the Registration Act, the Land Revenue Code makes it imperative for the Officer recording such a registration to forward an intimation to the talathi of the village. The avowed purpose of such an intimation is to keep the Talathi of a village or tahsildar of a taluka updated about the dealings in respect of a piece of land, in respect of which he is duty bound to maintain the revenue record. In such circumstances, the decision of the State Government not to effect entries of lis pendens in the record of rights is perfectly in tune and spirit with the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and we do not find that the said decision calls for an interference by exercising our writ jurisdiction. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7040 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 8042 of 2014

Decided On: 17.07.2018

Pramod Moreshwar Tattu Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Dharmadhikari and Bharati H. Dangre, JJ.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 785

Print Page

Whether court can rely on date given in unregistered lease deed?

This argument seems attractive on first blush. However, when we carefully peruse the original document, we notice that by this document [Annexure P-2] Phoolchand states that he has received Rs. 2000/- from Yashchandra and that he has permitted Yashchandra to enclose and cultivate 1/3rd of his land measuring 24 acres and cultivate the same and only Rs. 500/- would be deducted. Even after payment of the full amount of Rs. 2000/-, Yashchandra would be entitled to cultivate the land for a period of 10 years. This document is signed only by Phoolchand and it is neither witnessed by anybody nor registered. This document transfers an interest in immovable property of more than rupees hundred. It may be true that under the provisions of the Code oral leases of agricultural holdings are permissible, but once the lease is created by a document then the same has to be registered under the Registration Act. This document is an unregistered document. The courts below have come to the conclusion that this document is an ante-dated document. Therefore, this document cannot be looked into for deciding whether this document creates any right, title or interest in the Appellants. In our view, in the absence of any registration or any attesting witness, the document could have easily been manipulated by Phoolchand and the Plaintiff by ante-dating it.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5040 of 2009

Decided On: 20.09.2017

Yashchandra (D) by L.Rs. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 16 SCC 414

Print Page

Whether unregistered lease deed can be used for collateral purpose?

 Section 55 of the Rent Control Act deals with the tenancy agreement to be compulsorily registered. Sub section 2 of Section 55 of the Act is relevant here. It reads thus :

"The responsibility of getting such agreement registered shall be on the landlord and in the absence of the written registered agreement, the contention of the tenant about the terms and conditions subject to which a premises have been given to him by the landlord on leave and licence or have been let to him, shall prevail, unless proved otherwise."

10. From sub-section 2 of Section 55 of the Rent Control Act, it can be seen that registration of agreement is required to be at the behest of landlord and otherwise burden to prove tenancy or licence is on the tenant. Section 55(2) of the Rent Control Act cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in conformity with the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act. Section 17 of the Registration Act refers to the documents of which registration is compulsory. Sub-section (1)(d) relates to leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent.

11. Under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act such as lease is to be made only by a registered instrument. So far as the effect of non-registration of lease-deed is concerned, Section 49 in clear and unambiguous words speaks that it can be used only for collateral purpose. It means, the factum of tenancy and possession if disputed between landlords and tenant can be considered even on the basis of unregistered lease-deed, but when it touches the terms and conditions of lease-deed the same cannot be admitted and read in evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition Nos. 3270 and 3271 of 2016

Decided On: 24.07.2017

Prasram Vs. Deepak and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Indira Jain, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 883

Print Page

Whether registrar can refuse to register sale deed without assigning reasons?

The impugned endorsement on the sale deed
presented by the petitioner does not reflect the specific reasons after due
application of mind before its return. The District Sub-Registrar
-respondent no. 4 is, therefore, required to record specific reasons for its
rejection, if any, after due application of mind in accordance with law
taking into account the circulars and the guidelines issued by the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand as
well as the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajrajeshwar
Prasad Singh Chandel in W.P.(C) No. 6184/2014 reported in 2015 (3)
JCR 598 (Jhr.). Accordingly the impugned order is quashed for the

aforesaid reasons. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
 W.P. (C) No. 1630 of 2015

Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal 
V
State of Jharkhand.

Dated: 03.01.2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 Jharkhand 21

Print Page

When family settlement is compulsorily registrable?

The tenor of the aforesaid document shows that the right in

the property has been created for the first time in favour of the plaintiff

through the family settlement (Ex.P-1), the plot in question was allotted

to defendant from the defence quota being an Army Officer. As already

discussed, it is not established that the plaintiff has paid or contributed

any amount for the purchase of the said plot, so he was not having any

pre-existing rights in the said plot. So, the family settlement (Ex.P-1) was

compulsorily registrable, but the same is an unregistered document, hence

the same is in admissible in evidence and will not convey any right, title

or interest in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, he cannot

claim himself to be the owner in possession of the plot in dispute to the

extent of 50% share by the dint of the family settlement Ex.P-1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

 AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A No.1526 of 2014(O&M)

Date of decision : 01.12.2016

Hargursharan Singh

V

Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH

Citation: AIR 2017 P&H 3

Print Page

Whether partition of joint family property can be proved by document thirty years old?

 Defendant No. 1 came with specific case that plaintiff
and Nandlal had separated from each other from prior to year
1944. He contended that in the year 1944, some writing was
done by plaintiff in favour of Nandlal to show that there was
separation. He contended that due to partition and writing, the

joint status had come to an end.

The learned counsel for appellants tried to use
section 90 of the Evidence Act in support of his submissions.

Section 90 of the Evidence Act runs as under :-
"90. Presumption as to documents thirty
years old.—Where any document, purporting or
proved to be thirty years old, is produced from
any custody which the Court in the particular case
considers proper, the Court may presume that the
signature and every other part of such document,
which purports to be in the handwriting of any
particular person, is in that person’s handwriting,
and, in the case of a document executed or
attested, that it was duly executed and attested
by the persons by whom it purports to be
executed and attested.
Explanation.—Documents are said to be in
proper custody if they are in the place in which,
and under the care of the person with whom, they
would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it
is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the
circumstances of the particular case are such as to
render such an origin probable.
This Explanation applies also to section 81"
The aforesaid provision shows that discretion is given to the
Court by using words 'may presume' to presume due execution
or due attesting of such document. If there are suspicious
circumstances, Court can refuse to raise presumption available
under section 90. In the present matter, the Trial Court refused

to raise such presumption by giving reasons that this document
was never used by Nandlal or even by defendant No. 1 for any
purpose prior to its production in the Court. The Courts below
have observed that there is convincing record to rebut the
presumption which could have been raised in view of section 90
in respect of Exh. 363. This Court has already quoted the
material showing that the family continued to remain joint in all
respects and this record is considered by the Courts below also.
When the finding of the Court is about proof of execution and
section 90 needs to be used for the proof of execution, it
becomes purely matter of discretion and the Appellate Court is
not expected to interfere lightly in finding given by the Trial
Court in such circumstances. The scope of this Court in Second
Appeal is further reduced. For this reason, this Court is not
expected to interfere in the findings given by the Courts below in
respect of proof of execution and admissibility of Exh. 363 in
evidence.
27) The proof of execution cannot lead to inference that
the contents are correct. Whether such document could have
been considered for proof of execution is other question. The
proof of execution of Exh. 363 could not have been allowed in
the Court for other reasons also. The contents of this document

purport relinquishment of right in coparcenery property, which is
immovable property. Though there was admittedly some charge
on the property like house No. 1285 or even on the share in the
property from Shevgaon, there was the other property like share
in house No. 1286-87 purchased under the registered document.
There was big agricultural land at Shevgaon. As per the
provisions of Transfer of Property Act and the provisions of Indian
Registration Act, such document ought to have been registered.
It was necessary to pay the stamp duty also, if due to this
document plaintiff was to relinquish his rights in immovable
property. For this reason even for collateral purpose the
document could not have been used and proof of execution
could not have been allowed. The provisions of not only Indian
Registration Act, but also the other Act like Stamp Act would

have proved to be obstacle.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2002

Madanlal Nandlal Zawar V  Premsukh Ramdayal Zawar,

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 3rd May, 2016.
Citation: 2017(2) ALLMR 123

Print Page

Whether Registering officer can undertake inquiry into legality and validity of document to be registered?

We have exhaustively produced relevant provisions
of Act, 1908 which confer adequate powers upon
registering officer and higher ups including to obtain
photographs and finger prints and the signature for
obtaining registration under Section 32 (a) of the Act and
duties of registering officer when such document is
presented under Section 52 of the Act. Section 34
envisaged nature of limited inquiry but not about legality
and validity of the title to be undertaken before
registration of the document by registering officer and in
case when identity of the person presenting the document
is doubtful registration is to be refused, which is again
subject matter of appeal before higher officer. The
contention based on Sections 68 and 69 of the Act, 1908
by learned Additional Advocate General about powers of
Registrar to Superintend and control Sub Registrars and
Power of Inspector-General to Superintend registration
offices and make rules, however would not confer any
power upon the State Government to issue such executive
instructions which are contrary to Act, 1908 and
provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and
further Section 69(2) envisaged that rules made under
Section 69 shall have to be submitted to the State
Government for approval and after they have been
approved and published in the official gazette the same
shall have effect as if enacted under the Act. Admittedly,

no such rules are framed. In a case of Pandurangan v.
Sub-Registrar, Reddiar-Palayam Pondicherry & Ors. where
Rule 54 was framed in exercise of power conferred under
Section 69 of the Act, 1908 was held to be illegal by
holding that statutory rules cannot override express
provisions of the statute. Further, the powers conferred
under Section 69 are only of General Superintendence and
for purpose mentioned therein and not to make any inroad
or obviate provisions of the Act. That Chapter XIV
pertaining to ‘of penalties’ of the Act 1908 provides
action to be taken against registering officer in case if
such officer knows or believes that endorsement, copying,
translation or registration of such document is incorrect
such action shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with
both. Likewise, Section 82 is about penalty for making
false statements, delivering false copies or translations,
false personation and abetment and in this case also
punishment is the same. Further registering officer is
empowered to commence prosecution with permission of
superior officer whenever such offence is committed.
Thus, sufficient care is taken for any mischief either to be
made by presenter or even officer of registration
department. The apprehension of learned Additional
Advocate General about suspicion and doubtful power of
attorney and holder of such power of attorney therefore is
misconceived.

18.1.The contention raised by Mr. P.K.Jani, learned
Additional Advocate General about breach of provisions of
other statute, prima facie to be looked into by the
registering authority has no merit. It is trite that for
breach of provisions of any other Act, competent authority
under such Act has all the powers to take action in
accordance with law for the breach alleged. For example,
if the stamp duty is not paid in accordance with the
requirement under Stamp Act, competent authority under
the above Act has all the powers to take action in
accordance with law but for such ground registering
officer is not empowered to refuse the registration of the
document if otherwise found proper in accordance with
provisions of the Act, 1908. That Rule 45 of the rules
1970 framed by the State of Gujarat in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 69 of the Act 1908 also envisaged
preliminary and limited inquiry by Registering Officer
before accepting the document and the same is in
consonance with Section 34 of the Act but under above
rule also provision of the main Act 1908 also cannot be
subdued or can be given go by or whittled down and the
contentions based on Rule 45 also have no merit.
19. That contention raised by learned Additional
Advocate General on the strength of decisions cited to
which reference is made in para 4 of this judgment has no
applicability inasmuch as in the case of Rai Sahib Ram
Jawaya Kapur & Ors. v. The State of Punjab (supra), it only

explain scope of executive power in the context of Article
162 of the Constitution of India and in case of Ajit
Investment Co.Pvt. Ltd., Jamnagar Gujarat and Anr. V. K.G.
Malvadkar and Ors. (supra) though deal with Sections 34
and 35 of the Act 1908 and Rule 44 of Maharashtra Rules,
1961 it is only about empowerment of a registering officer
to verify certain requirements pertaining to registration of
documents which are prescribed in the said rules but may
not be concerned about validity of such document. Such
registering authority can satisfy himself as to the identity
of the persons appearing before him. Thus, above
decision also do not approve inquiry to be made in the
legality and validity of the title of the document if it
satisfies other requirement of the Act 1908. in the case of
Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. Thru Div. State of
Haryana and Anr. (supra), the Apex Court was concerned
with transactions undertaken by taking recourse to power
of attorney and not following the procedure and
requirement of registration of sale deed of transfer of
immovable property and, therefore, deprecated transfer of
immovable property either by sale agreement or general
power of attorney or wil.
19.1.Therefore, none of the above authorities permit
registering officer to undertake inquiry into legality and
validity of the title and document empowering registering
officer to act like judicial officer.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 22 of 2013
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14413 of 2011

STATE OF GUJARAT 
V
RAJIV MAHESHKUMAR MEHTA & 3
CORAM:  MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
 MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 09/08/2016

Print Page

How to compute period of four months as stipulated in S 23 of registration Act?

 In Chhabildas Dalichand Bhayani v/s. The Sub-Registrar
of Mumbai and anr. (Writ Petition No.903 of 2014) decided on 26 June
2014 a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Authorities had
misapplied the provisions of section 23 of the Indian Registration Act in
refusing the request of the Petitioner to register the document. In that
case the sale certificate was presented to the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai on

22 November 2012 and the order was passed under section 31 of the
Bombay Stamp Act on 3 April 2013 determining the stamp duty and the
final stamp duty was determined by an order dated 31 August 2013. The
learned single Judge accepted the contention on behalf of the Petitioner
that the delay had occurred on account of adjudication of the document
and that that delay cannot be taken into consideration for declining the
registration. The learned Single Judge held that there was no delay on the
part of the Petitioner to lodge the document for registration to attract the
provisions of sections 23 & 25 of the Indian Registration Act 1908. The
learned Single Judge in coming to this conclusion relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Kirti Jagdish Mulani v/s. The State of
Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.2662 of 2012) wherein it was held
that the time taken by the Authority to adjudicate the stamp duty cannot be
taken into consideration while computing the period of four months as
stipulated under section 23 of the Indian Registration Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2762 OF 2014
Akshay Vitta Management and Investment
Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

 CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J.
 DATED : 21 APRIL 2015.
Citation;2016(1) ALLMR 638

Print Page

Whether execution of Will can be doubted on the ground that sub Registrar was called at house of executant?

S. 31 of the Registration Act, 1908 says that in ordinary cases the registration shall be made only at the office of the officer authorised for registration of the document. There is a proviso to S. 31 which says that the officer authorised to register the document may, on special cause being shown, attend the residence of any person desiring to present a document for registration and accept for registration such document or Will. The argument advanced for and on behalf of the appellant is that there was no special reason established for the officer for going to the house of Ippuru for registering the document. In (his connection, R 50 of the Kerala Registration Rules was also pointed out. The above Rule provides that the registering officer shall obtain in his deposition book a statement from the party concerned justifying the urgency whether due to illness or otherwise and a copy of that statement shall be attached to the report of private attendance. PW. 5 said that he did not record any statement of the person who executed the document which had to be registered. It is maintained that the fact that no such statement was recorded by the registering officer would go to show that there was no proper registration of the Will. What is staled in R.50 regarding taking of statement by the registering officer from the party concerned justifying the urgency or reason for going to the residence of the executant of the document for receiving the document for registration is regarding the procedure to be followed by the registering officer when he goes to the residence for the above purpose. As per the proviso toS. 31 of me Registration Act, the registering officer, on special cause being shown, can attend the residence of any person desiring to present a document for registration.

Kerala High Court

Cherichi vs Ittianam on 6 December, 2000

Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 Ker 184

Bench: K Radhakrishnan, G Sasidharan

Print Page

Whether registration of copy of decree or order of court is permissible under registration Act?

But the main question for consideration is whether the Registration Act authorises the registration of a certified copy of a document when the original is lost or not produced by the party when called upon to do so by the registering authority. There is no express provision in that Act authorising the registration of a copy of a document. The only exception is as regards copies of decrees or orders of court for which special provisions have been made in the proviso toSection 23 and Sub-section (5) of Section 34. Copy of decree has also been referred to inSection 58(1). Hence, when the Registration Act expressly provides for the registration of a copy of a decree or order of a court and does not make such a provision as regards a certified copy of a private document such as a deed of sale, there seems to be no authority for registration of such a certified copy.1

Patna High Court

Sadhu Singh vs Ramawadh Singh And Ors. on 27 April, 1966

Equivalent citations: AIR 1966 Pat 369

Bench: R Narasimham, A Ahmad

Print Page

Distinction between collateral purpose and collateral transaction for the purpose of stamp duty

The trial court in the present case has anaylsed the true import of “the provisions of the collateral purpose” with reference to the ratio of the judgement in K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd., supra. Admittedly, execution of agreement to sell in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by the defendant-petitioner is accompanied by handing over of possession. If the facts of the present case are examined, the suit being for declaration and injunction and the sole basis thereof being the alleged sale deed, which is neither registered, nor stamped on the strength of which the plaintiff claim that defendants parted with possession and handover the possession thereof to the plaintiff, the production of the said document cannot be said to be for collateral purpose. This is because the re-citation therein with regard to transaction of sale is not an independent of or devisable from the transaction for the purpose of which the document is executed, which is required to be registered. Collateral purpose is the purpose which is independent of or devisable from, purpose for which document was executed and of which the law required registration. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. Section 35 of the Stamp Act has in this regard advisedly used the words “for any purpose whatsoever”, thus the purpose for which the document is sought to be admitted in evidence in the instant case would be relevant for invoking Section 35.

REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B.  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7418/2012

Mahesh Chand vs. Judicial Officer & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER : :   1st May, 2015

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Citation; AIR 2015 RAJ141

Print Page

Whether document can be presented for Registration by one of representative?

 Having regard to these authorities in view of the finding of the District Judge that the document was executed by Ayesha and that she knew what she was doing at that time so far as the execution is concerned there is no substance in the first ground taken. It is next contended that the document should not have been directed to be registered as all the requirements of the Registration Act had not been fulfilled. It was argued that as the document was presented for registration by one of the representatives there was not a valid presentation within the meaning of Section 32, Registration Act. This view prevailed with the Munsif, but the view seems to be erroneous for the word "representative" used in Section 32, Clause (b) includes the case of one of several representatives. It has been so held in a recent decision of this Court in the case of Madhu Mollah v. Babonsa Karikar . The second ground also therefore is untenable.

Calcutta High Court

Abdul Gafur Bhuiya vs Badial Haque And Ors. on 8 January, 1932

Equivalent citations: AIR 1932 Cal 588

Author: Mitter

Print Page