Bhullar Prasad And Another vs District Registrar/Addl. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14957 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:33192
 
RESERVED
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1004277 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Bhullar Prasad And Another
 
Respondent :- District Registrar/Addl. Collector Gonda And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saima Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indrajeet Shukla,Pankaj Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard Ms. Saima Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 22.09.2007 passed by the respondent no.2/Deputy Registrar, Tarabganj, Gonda whereby he has refused to register the sale deed and the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the respondent no.1/District Registrar/Additional Collector, Gonda, whereby he has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

Facts of the case are that on 18.09.2007 at around 3/4 PM in the afternoon a sale deed dated 24.05.2007 was presented under Section 36 of the Registration Act by Bhullar Prasad son of Ram Gulam, petitioner no.1 before the Deputy Registrar for its registration. He claimed that the said sale deed was executed by Ramanand son of Ram Gulam, his brother, in his favour as well as in favour of his another brother Chhote Lal and Dev Narain son of Ram Pher. The refusal for registration by the impugned order dated 22.09.2007 by the Deputy Registrar is on the ground that the same is filed with much delay as period of six months for registration is expiring soon and there is no time left now even for issuing notice to the respondents. Against the said order, an appeal was filed under Section 73 of the Registration Act along with an application for condonation of delay. The said appeal is also rejected by order dated 13.12.2012. The appellate Court has also considered the matter on merits. It has noted that respondent has refused execution of the alleged deed. It found that during pendency of the said dispute the property is already sold by sale deed dated 02.01.2008 in favour of Srimati wife of Rajender and in favour of Lalmati wife of Chandrika and Azeema wife of Azimullah. A suit is already filed by the petitioners before the Civil Court for cancellation of the said sale deed and for injunction. The appellate Court found that the grounds for condonation of delay are not sufficient. It has further found that evidence is not filed by the appellant to prove payment of Rs.2,41,000/- to Ramanand towards execution of the sale deed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned, while exercising power under Section 36 of the Registration Act, to hold an inquiry and thereafter decide the matter. While conducting the inquiry it was also incumbent upon the authorities to summon the witnesses as required.

Opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents state that there is no evidence given by the petitioner before either of the authorities. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to produce his witnesses or documents to prove execution of the document. He further submits that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under Section 77 of the Registration Act by filing a suit against the order and rejecting the registration or otherwise filing a suit under the provisions of Specific Relief Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

From the very facts as set up by the petitioners, it appears that the sale deed is alleged to be executed on 24.5.2007 and presented before the Sub Registrar for registration on 18.09.2007. There is no proper explanation for such a long delay in presentation of the sale deed. The seller and two of the purchasers are real brothers. There is no reason in the given circumstances for causing such a long delay, when the document for registration is required to be presented within a period of six months from the date of its execution. The same creates a serious doubt. Further, there is no evidence of payment of Rs.2,41,600/- to the seller. The amount of Rs.2,41,600/- is not a small amount. There is no proof given by the petitioners as to from where he arranged the said amount and the manner in which the same was paid. Admittedly, the property is already sold on 1.2.2008 and a civil suit is already pending with regard to the same.

In the given facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed by the authorities concerned. Under Section 77 of the Registration Act, the petitioners have an alternative and effective remedy for filing a civil suit since the Registration of the said document is refused by the authority concerned or has a remedy of filing a suit under the provisions of Specific Relief Act.

In the given facts, when the petitioner has already filed a civil suit for cancellation of the second sale deed and also looking into the factual considerations involved in the case, it would be appropriate for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for raising the disputed factual issues involved in the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported 1998 (Suppl.) (Revenue Decisions) 438 (Km. Sushila Saxena Vs. Sub Registrar, Shahjahanpur and others). The said judgment relates to the witnesses of a will, and this matter pertains to a sale deed, therefore, applicability of law for both is entirely different and hence the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present cases.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1965 Assam and Nagaland 42 (V52 C 18); Ka Plinis Myrthong Vs. Riang Pyrbot and others. The facts of the said case are that two of three executants here have admitted the execution of the document, hence the same is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2007 Karnataka 164; N.M. Ramachandraiah and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others; Paragraph 18 of the same reads as under:

"18. The proceedings before the Registrar is of quasi-judicial nature. Though execution does not mean signing of a document, but nontheless if fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and mistake, are pleaded by the executant of a document, to contend that his signature is obtained to the document in question, the Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into these questions. All that he is expected to find out is whether the executant has duly executed the document and no mere signing of the document. All the aforesaid questions have to be gone into by a competent Civil Court. Therefore the finding recorded by the Registering Authority that the Fourth respondent has proved due execution of the sale deed by the petitioners is based on legal evidence produced in a quasi-judicial proceeding and having regard to the limited scope of enquiry under Section 74 of the Registration Act, the said finding is unassailable. This Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not embark upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record as if it is a Court of appeal and try to find out whether the appellate Authority was justified in recording its finding that due execution of the sale deed is established. Notwithstanding the said finding regarding due execution by the Registrar, and the said finding is not interfered by this Court in this writ petition, it is always open to the person who is aggrieved by the said finding to challenge the aforesaid sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, in a competent Civil Court. The Civil Court shall go into the issue regarding due execution independently, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, without in any way being influenced by the finding of the Registrar, and the observations of this Court on that aspect in this order."

A perusal of Paragraph 18 of the said judgment shows that the same goes against the petitioner himself. In the said case also the High Court has found that in the given circumstances appropriate efficacious remedy is the Civil Court. In the present case execution of deed is refused by the respondent.

Thus, I do not find any force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed on the ground of alternative and effective remedy available to the petitioner in the Civil Court.

(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)

Order Date:- May 12, 2023

Arjun/-