The Supreme Court has observed that "execution" of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document.

The Full-Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that in a situation where an individual admits their signature on a document but denies its execution, the Sub-Registrar is bound to refuse registration in accordance with Sections 35(3)(a) of Registration Act, 1908.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal assailing HC order wherein petition under Article 226 filed by the appellant, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Registrar's order was dismissed.

The appellant had entered into two agreements with a developer pursuant to which a sale deed was executed by her in favour of the developer based upon the agreement to sell and upon the payment of the remaining sale consideration. The developer presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar. Upon getting served, the appellant appeared and submitted an objection in writing, with a request not to execute the incomplete and forged sale deed. She alleged that the developer had been harassing her into forcibly signing the sale deed in respect of her property and that they furnished her with misleading and false information in order to get her to sign the papers, all the while even forcing her to hide the transaction from the members of her own family. Accepting these objections, the Sub-Registrar having refused to order the registration of the sale deed. In appeal filed by the developer, the District Registrar set aside the Sub-Registrar's decision and ordered the registration of the sale deed. This order was challenged before the High Court via a writ petition which was dismissed with liberty to move the civil court for a declaration that the sale deed had been obtained by fraud and was a nullity.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Court noted that sub-Section (3)(a) of Section 35 stipulates, inter alia, that if a person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, the registering officer will refuse to register the document.

It added that in the event of a refusal by the Registrar, a suit can be filed by a party in terms of the provisions of Section 77 before a civil court, praying for a decree directing the document to be registered.

"On the other hand, an order of the Registrar directing the registration of a document is amenable to a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. While seeking a writ of certiorari, the person moving the petition before the High Court would be entitled to establish whether the registration has been ordered in breach of the statutory provisions and is contrary to law. The mere existence of the remedy available before a civil court, under Section 9 of the CPC to avoid the document or to seek a declaration in regard to its invalidity, will not divest a person, who complains that the order passed by Registrar for the registration of the document was contrary to statutory provisions, of the remedy which is available in the exercise of a court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."

The Court observed that it is evident from the objections filed before the Sub-Registrar by the appellant that she did not deny having signed the sale deed.

The essence of her grievance was that her signatures were taken forcibly; the sale deed did not reflect the intent of the parties in terms of the area which was intended to be sold; the sale consideration was undervalued; the consequence of the sale deed was that even the residential house of the appellant would be sold, contrary to her understanding; and the sale deed had been procured by fraud. The order of the Sub-Registrar makes it abundantly clear that the appellant was not ready to register the sale deed, which was claimed to have been executed in a fraudulent manner and whose execution was thus being denied. Registration was, therefore, refused by the Sub-Registrar in terms of Section 35(3)(a) of the Registration Act., the Court stated.

It thus enunciated that if a person by whom the document is purported to be executed denies its execution and registration is refused on those grounds, an appeal against the order of the SubRegistrar denying execution would not be maintainable under Section 72 of the Registration Act. Section 72 clearly stipulates that an appeal will lie against an order of Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration “except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution.

In the present case, the Sub-Registrar having specifically denied registration in terms of Section 35(3)(a), the order was not amenable to an appeal under Section 72. However, the Registrar, in the course of entertaining the appeal, instead took recourse to the powers entrusted under Section 73, the Court sated.

The Court remarked that Section 73 empowers the Registrar where the Sub-Registrar has refused to register a document on denial of its execution by a person purporting to have executed it. Subsequently, the Registrar appears to have followed the procedure which is emphasized in Section 74.

"In the present case, the appeal before the Registrar was not maintainable under Section 72. Indeed, the appellant, in response to the memo of appeal filed by the second respondent, specifically pleaded in her objections that “hearing the appeal under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act or to deliver any judgement will be against law”. At the same time, however, the appellant also pleaded that she “had full right for argument under Section 75(4) of the Indian Registration Act and under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from the witnesses and the appellant”. The Registrar is empowered to summon witnesses under Section 75(4) for the purpose of an enquiry under Sections 73 and 74. It thus emerges that the parties proceeded on the basis that the proceedings would be decided on the basis of an enquiry under Section 73, and the enquiry was conducted with reference to the provisions of Section 74. The appellant herself understood this to be the position in her objections filed to the appeal filed by the second respondent, since she invoked her rights under Section 75(4), which applies to enquiry proceedings under Section 74. The appeal against the Sub-Registrar’s order was not maintainable under Section 72. The remedy of the second respondent, where the Sub-Registrar refused registration on the ground that the appellant denied execution of the document, was under Section 73. The Registrar conducted an enquiry under the provisions of sections 73 and 74. Both parties participated in the enquiry."
The Court mentioned that the mis-labelling of an application under Section 73 as an appeal under Section 72 would by itself not vitiate the proceedings before the Registrar. This becomes especially true when proceedings before the Registrar, in substance, were proceedings under Section 73 itself and both the parties acknowledged them to be so, explicitly or by their conduct.

Noting that the term "execution" in Section 35(1)(a) Registration Act means that a person has signed a document after having fully understood it and consented to its terms, the Court concluded:

"In the impugned judgment, the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has observed that registration does not depend upon the consent of the executant but on the Registrar’s finding that the executant had actually signed the document. The High Court held that having found in the course of the enquiry that the sale deed was duly prepared by a scribe, that the attesting witness had stated that the sale deed was signed by the appellant and she also placed her fingerprints in their presence, it was open to the Registrar to direct registration in spite of a denial of its execution by the appellant. In doing so, the Single Judge of the High Court has, with respect, conflated the mere signing of the sale deed with its execution."

The impugned order was thus set aside for reasons that such an approach is completely erroneous and cannot be upheld.

Case Title: Veena Singh (Dead) Through LR Versus The District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) And Another

Case Details: Civil Appeal No. 2929 of 2022; May 10, 2022

Coram: Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon