Rajendra Singh vs A.D.M/Zila Nibandhak Bareilly & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 4173 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

(Judgment reserved on 19.05.2011)
 
(Judgment delivered on 29.08.2011)
 

 

 
Court No. - 30
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17145 of 1999
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh
 
Respondent :- A.D.M/Zila Nibandhak Bareilly & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- M.K.Kandpal,K.S.Mishra,M.C.Kandpal,R.C. Kandpal
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,T.S. Dabbas
 

 

 
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Late Sri Ranjit Singh father of the petitioner executed a sale deed on 20.03.1998 of his half share in agricultural land, total area 10 bighas 15 biswas for Rs.1,20,000/- and signed on the sale deed after receiving the amount within the campus of Sub-Registrar (or Deputy Registrar) Office of Tehsil Meer Ganj, District Bareilly. However just before presentation of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, petitioner-son of late Sri Ranjit Singh came along with several persons, illegally lifted his father and took him away. The sale deed was executed in favour of respondents No.2 & 3, Vijendra Singh and Javendra Singh. FIR was lodged by respondent No.4 against petitioner claiming to be his mother.

On 26.05.1998, respondents No.2 & 3 presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar stating that Ranjit Singh was not traceable. Sub-Registrar sent registered notice to Ranjit Singh twice, however as Ranjit Singh was not traceable, hence notice could not be served. Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed on the ground that more than four months' period had expired hence in view of Section 23 of Registration Act he had no jurisdiction to register the sale deed. Section 23 of Registration Act is quoted below:

"23. Time for presenting documents.- Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution:

(proviso not relevant)"

When sale deed was presented for registration by respondents No.2 & 3 on 26.05.1998, it was accompanied by an application under Section 36 of Registration Act and thereupon registered notice was issued by the Sub-Registrar to Ranjit Singh. The Sub-Registrar refused to execute the sale deed on the ground of delay through order dated 20.07.1998. True copy of the said order is Annexure-III to the writ petition. Against the said order, respondents No.2 & 3 filed an appeal before District Registrar/ A.D.M. Finance and Revenue, Bareilly under Section 72 of the Registration Act. Petitioner in spite of sufficient service did not appear in appeal. The District Registrar/ A.D.M. allowed the appeal through order dated 18.03.1999, set aside the order of the Sub-Registrar dated 20.07.1998 and directed that the sale deed in question should be accepted for registration. This writ petition is directed against the said order. Ranjit Singh had died on 01.08.1998.

In Annexure-III, it is mentioned that first registered notice was sent to Ranjit Singh on 06.06.1998 which returned unserved on 09.06.1998. Similarly, second registered notice dated 02.07.1998 returned unserved on 07.07.1998. It is not clear why Sub-Registrar waited for 13 days more and did not register the sale deed and pass the order immediately on 07.07.1998. The Sub-Registrar also referred to Section 35 of the Registration Act.

In the entire writ petition execution of the sale deed by late Sri Ranjit Singh is specifically not denied. What has mainly been stated is that the property in dispute was ancestral meaning thereby it could not be sold by late Sri Ranjit Singh (Paras-2 & 3 of the writ petition). In Para-8, only this much has been stated that Ranjit Singh never appeared before the Registrar for execution of the sale deed. In Para-13 of the writ petition it has been stated as follows:

"That the aforesaid court's view that at the time of execution of aforesaid document, the father of petitioner, Sri Ranjit Singh was quite physically and mentally fit, is totally wrong, and incorrect, while certificate issued by the doctor dated 21.03.1998 dhows that the father of the petitioner Sri Ranjit Singh was not physically and mentally fit, thus there is no question of any execution of document in favour of the respondent No.2 & 3, it is highly unbelievable, and beyond the truth."

Annexure-V does not bear any date. It mainly says that Sri Ranjit Singh is suffering from merigitilies and his mind, ear and eyes are defective. Complete rest was advised.

Accordingly, it is clear that execution is not specifically denied. In the entire writ petition, the emphasis is on the delay. The District Registrar/ A.D.M. in his impugned order dated 18.03.1999 categorically held that Smt. Kalwati wife of Sri Ranjit Singh and mother of the petitioner appeared before him and admitted that her husband after receiving Rs.1,20,000/- had executed the sale deed. In the entire writ petition receipt of Rs.1,20,000/- is not denied. In this regard order which was passed on 19.05.2011 when arguments were heard in this writ petition and judgment was reserved is also quoted below:

"Heard learned counsel for the� parties.

Judgment reserved.

On inquiry from court, learned counsel for the petitioner has willingly agreed to return the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in case matter is decided in his favour. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has stated that his client is ready to pay something more to the petitioner in case matter is decided in his favour provided that the additional amount required to be paid is reasonable."

The petitioner has said a wonderful thing regarding the statement of his mother before the A.D.M. In Para-9 of the writ petition he has stated that his mother Smt. Kalawati died in 1990 but some other lady namely Kalawati wife of one Ashok Gupta was made to appear before the A.D.M./ District Registrar and she gave the statement. (Smt. Kalawati wife of Ashok Gupta has been arranged as respondent No.4 in the writ petition) The A.D.M. expressed the opinion that the Sub-Registrar should have obtained the consent of Registrar under Section 25 of Registration Act, which is quoted below:

"25. Provision where delay in presentation is unavoidable.-(1) If, owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, any document executed, or copy of a decree or order made, in India is not presented for registration till after the expiration of the time hereinbefore prescribed in that behalf, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in presentation does not exceed four months, may direct that, on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration-fee, such document shall be accepted for registration.

(2) Any application for such direction may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate."

In the judgment and order passed by the District Registrar, the date of order of Sub-Registrar is mentioned as 16.09.1998 which appears to be a typing error. However in the operative part correct date, i.e. 20.07.1998 is mentioned. It appears that the certified copy was made available on 16.09.1998.

Pratap Singh witness of respondents No.2 & 3 gave statement before the District Registrar apart from Smt. Kalawati, mother of petitioner. The FIR was lodged by Smt. Kalwati, the mother of the petitioner against him promptly. Another lady could not be arranged as stated by petitioner so promptly. The District Registrar held that late Sri Ranjit Singh willingly executed the sale deed.

In fact the view of Sub-Registrar was wrong. Under Section 23, Registration Act four months' period is prescribed for presentation of the deed for registration and not for actual registration. The document had been presented for registration within two and a half months (date of execution 20.03.1998 and date of presentation 26.05.1998).

In the written arguments field by Sri K.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner it has been stated on Pages No.3 & 4 that Ranjit Singh was drunkard extremely aged about 70 years and suffering from heart disease.

Petitioner is an illustrious son who maligns his father after his death and disowns his mother and even though she is alive, he calls her dead.

The petitioner actually committed a crime by forcibly taking his father along with the money. The action of petitioner was utterly illegal, extremely unjust and highly immoral. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.

Sub-Registrar concerned is directed to register the sale deed dated 20.03.1998 executed by late Sri Ranjit Singh very promptly, within two weeks from the date on which certified copy of this judgment is filed. If the registered sale deed has been taken away by the respondents No.2 & 3, then the same shall be presented along with certified copy of this judgment.

The S.D.O. concerned is directed to deliver possession of the property in dispute to the respondents No.2 & 3 positively within a week from the date on which registered sale deed is filed before him. If a complaint is made that either Sub-Registrar or S.D.O. concerned has caused a single day's delay in compliance of this judgment, the Court will take a very serious note.

Order Date :- 29.08.2011

NLY