Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1578 - SC - Indian LawsRefusal of registration - Whether the recourse by the second Respondent to Section 72 of the Registration Act, against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing registration on the basis of the Appellant's denial of execution, would deprive them of any remedy whatsoever? - Appellant's admission of her signatures and thumb impressions/fingerprints on the sale deed also amounts to an admission of its "execution" or not. HELD THAT:- The "execution" of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document. Such an interpretation accounts for circumstances where an individual signs a blank paper and it is later converted into a different document, or when an individual is made to sign a document without fully understanding its contents. Adopting a contrary interpretation would unfairly put the burden upon the person denying execution to challenge the registration before a civil court or a writ court, since registration will have to be allowed once the signature has been admitted. The Registration Act exists so that information about documents can be put into the public domain, where it can be accessed by anyone in order to prevent forgeries and fraud, and so that individuals can be aware of the status of properties. If the interpretation conflating signing with execution is adopted, it would ensure that the Sub-Registrars/Registrars will continuously end up registering documents whose validity will inevitably be then disputed in a civil suit or a writ petition. While the suit or writ proceedings continue, the document would remain on the public records as a registered instrument, which has the potential to cause more disruption. Hence, such an interpretation should not be adopted by this Court. The plea of the Appellant, that the purported sale deed though signed by her was procured by fraud and undue influence, was a matter which raised a serious substantive dispute. In support of her contentions, the Appellant has also adduced before us the inspection report by the Sub-Registrar and the Naib Tahsildar. However, we are inclined to hold that we cannot decide on the merits of the dispute at this stage, since the Registrar clearly exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating on the issue of fraud and undue influence. The Registrar purported to exercise the powers conferred Under Section 74 and arrived at a finding that the sale deed had been duly signed by the Appellant and was therefore liable to be registered. However, the objections of the Appellant raised serious issues of a triable nature which could only have been addressed before and adjudicated upon by a court of competent civil jurisdiction - As regards the subject matter of the sale deed, the second Respondent has instituted a suit for possession before the Civil Judge, Senior Division Fast Track Court Suit No 264 of 2016, where certain proceedings are pending. In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the opinion that the Registrar in the present case acted contrary to law by directing the sale deed to be registered. 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 - Appeal allowed.
|