Rs.No.3505 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3505 of 1987 Date of decision: 10.09.2013 Gurdev Singh ..Appellant Versus Shinder Singh alias Jaswinder Singh and another ..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN Present: Mr.F.S.Virk, Advocate for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr.Lokesh Chander Aggarwal, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.2.
Mahavir S.Chauhan, J.
Civil Suit No.150 of 1983, R.T.No.200 of 29.03.1985 was brought before Sub Judge, 1st Class, Moga (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') by Chhinder Singh alias Jaswinder Singh, plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) for grant of a decree of declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the land bearing KhaSr.No.54/11(7-8).Khewat No.126, Khatuani No.205, situated in the revenue estate of village Channuwala, Tehsil Moga, as per jamabandi for the year 1976-77 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land').with the consequential relief of grant of a decree of permanent injunction restraining Sub Registrar, Moga, defendant No.2 in the suit (respondent No.2 herein) from registering sale deed dated Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 2 25.06.1981 in favour of defendant No.1 (appellant herein) as execution of that sale deed was null and void.
The plaintiff had sought a declaration that registration of the aforesaid sale deed dated 25.06.1981, if made in favour of the defendant No.1-appellant, was null and void and inoperative qua him (the respondent No.1).The plaint: It was alleged by respondent No.1 that he was owner in possession of the suit land but on 25.06.1981, a sale deed was got scribed by the appellant, in collusion with the scribe and marginal witnesses, with an ulterior motive of cheating him and that he had appended his signatures on the sale deed under the wrong impression.
He came to know that he had been cheated and sale price had wrongly been quoted in the sale deed when the sale deed was presented for registration.
Therefore, he refused to sign the sale deed before the 2nd respondent and thereafter, an application was moved before the Registrar for registration of the sale deed whereupon the Registrar ordered registration of the sale deed while imposing a duty upon the 2nd respondent to ascertain the correct value of the land sold by way of the sale deed under reference but 2nd respondent did not inform the fiRs.respondent as to what action was taken as regards the sale deed.
According to the fiRs.respondent, the sale deed could not be registered as he had not agreed to the sale of the suit land and the amount of sale consideration, mentioned in the sale deed because price of the suit land was much more than what Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 3 was shown in the sale deed.
The written Statement: The appellant contested the suit and filed a written statement stating that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the sale deed was correctly registered as the fiRs.respondent had agreed to sell the suit land to him for Rs.17,000/- and had received a sum of Rs.4500/- as earnest money vide agreement of sale dated 15.10.1980 and the remaining amount of consideration was paid later on.
The suit was said to be not maintainable, all other allegations constituting the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was urged.
Issues: In view of diametrically opposing stances adopted by the parties, learned trial court decided to enter into an inquisition to resolve the controveRs.and, to facilitate such an inquisition, identified, from the pleadings of the parties, the areas of conflict in the form of following issues:- 1.
Whether the suit is not maintainable?.OPD2 Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction?.
OPD3 Whether the sale deed was got executed by fraud as alleged?.
OPP4 Whether the sale deed was properly registered as alleged?.OPD5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for?.
OPP6 Relief.
Suit dismissed: Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 4 On conclusion of evidence and after hearing the parties, learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the appellant, issue No.3 against plaintiff-fiRs.respondent and issue No.4 in favour of the defendant No.1-appellant and vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.1985 dismissed the suit of the fiRs.respondent, with no order as to costs, by observing that fiRs.respondent, while appearing as PW-3, had stated in his cross-examination that he did not appear before the Sub Registrar but at the same time he admitted his signatures on the sale deed.
Learned trial court also observed that fiRs.respondent could not plead and prove the ingredients of fraud stated to have been played upon him.
It was also observed by the learned trial Court that fiRs.respondent had admitted that he had filed an appeal before the Registrar through a lawyer and that it was also evident from order Exhibit D-2 of the Registrar, that this order was passed in the presence of counsel for the parties on 07.01.1983 and the parties were directed to appear before the Sub Registrar within 30 days of the order for registration of the sale deed but the fiRs.respondent did not appear in pursuance of order of the Registrar in spite of a notice having been served upon him by the Sub Registrar.
In this view of the situation, the Sub Registrar registered the sale deed on 17.03.1983 in the absence of the fiRs.respondent.
Appeal accepted: However, the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as 'the fiRs.appellate Court') vide judgment Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 5 and decree dated 19.08.1987 passed in Civil Appeal No.134 of 1985, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, accepted the appeal with costs and decreed the suit of the fiRs.respondent for grant of decree for declaration to the effect that he was owner and in possession of the suit land and the sale deed dated 25.06.1981, Exhibit D-1, registered on 17.03.1983, was illegal and void and, accordingly, set aside the same.
The learned fiRs.appellate Court, to reach the afore- stated conclusion, relied upon a judgment of Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Motahar Ali versus Sk.
Abdul Malek and another, 1957 AIR (Calcutta) 324, wherein it has been held that non compliance with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 75 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') renders registration of a document invalid and the defect is not curable under Section 87 of the Act.
Regular Second Appeal: To challenge judgment and decree dated 19.08.1987 of the learned fiRs.appellate Court, the appellant (defendant No.1 before the trial Court) has brought this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Respondent No.1 is reported to have died.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General for the 2nd respondent in the main appeal and have also gone through the record.
Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 6 Application for additional evidence: The appellant has also moved an application under Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') with a prayer that he be allowed to bring on record an application dated nil brought by him before the learned fiRs.appellate court and an extract from despatch register of the office of Registrar, alleging that these documents, though necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, but could not be proved during the couRs.of trial inspite of exercise of due diligence as these documents were not in the knowledge of the appellant at that time.
Though no arguments have been addressed on this application but I have perused the application and the documents sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence.
The application stated to be moved before the learned fiRs.appellate court was only for summoning the record from the HRC, Faridkot or to direct the second respondent to produce the record, and, as such is not relevant for disposal of the appeal.
Reading of the extract, a true copy of which has been tagged with the application, makes no sense.
It claims to be an extract of the Peshi Register of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot but talks of despatch of “copy of order of the Registrar cum (DC) dated 7.1.83 alongwith sale deed file pages 1 to 46 sent to Sub Registrar, Moga”.
from the office of Sub Registrar, Moga to that of D.C., Faridkot on 31.01.1983.
It has not been mentioned in the application how this extract is relevant for disposal Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 7 of the instant appeal.
May be, the appellant wished to prove from this extract that order dated 07.01.1983 of the Registrar, Moga, was sent to Sub Registrar, Moga on 31.03.1983 but even if it is so, fate of the appeal would remain unchanged as it is the presentation of the sale deed and not receipt of the order of the Registrar, which is relevant.
From the endorsement on the sale deed, Exhibit D1, it is clear, beyond doubt, that it was presented for registration and was consequently registered on 17.03.1983.
Be that as it may, the extract, referred to above, was in existence when the parties were leading evidence before the learned trial court but no effort is shown to have been made by the appellant to prove it on record as per law of evidence or that the learned trial court refused to admit the document in evidence.
Even before the learned fiRs.appellate court no endeavour is found to be made by the appellant to bring this document on record by way of additional evidence.
Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code reads as under: “27.
Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court.
But if— (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 8 when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be exam med.
(2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to the produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.”
.
Scope of this Rule was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh & Ors.V.Naresh Chandra & Anr, AIR2003SC134 and it was held as under: “The Court is not bound under the circumstances mentioned under the rule to permit additional evidence and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence and the matter is entirely in the discretion of Court, which is, of course, to be exercised judicially and sparingly.
The scope of Order 41 Rule 27, CPC was examined by the Privy Council in Kesowji Issur V.
G.I.P.Railway, (1907) ILR31BOM381in which it was laid down clearly that this rule alone can be looked to for taking additional evidence and that the Court has no jurisdiction to admit such evidence in case where this rule does not apply.
Order 41 Rule 27, CPC envisages certain circumstances when additional evidence can be adduced: the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 9 notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment, or for any other substantial cause.
“ .
The expression ‘ to enable it to pronounce judgment’ has been subject several decisions including Syed Abdul Khader V.
Rami Reddy , AIR1979SC553 wherein it was held that when the appellate Court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing a lacuna or defect in the evidence as it stands, it may admit additional evidence.
The ability to pronounce a judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce a judgment satisfactorily to mind of Court delivering it.
It is only a lacuna that will empower the Court to admit additional evidence (see The Municipal Corporation of Bombay V.
Lala Pancham, AIR1965SC1008.
But a mere difficulty in coming to a decision is not sufficient for admission of evidence under this rule.
The words “or for any other substantial cause”.
must be read with the word “requires”.
which is set out at the commencement of the provision, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule would apply as noticed by the Privy Council in Kesowji Issur V.
G.I.P.Railway (Supra).It is under these circumstances such a power could Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 10 be exercised ”.
Nothing to the contrary has been shown.
The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
In criticism of the impugned judgment and decree: Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the learned fiRs.appellate Court to the effect that the sale deed, Exhibit D-1, has not been properly and validly registered and, thus, cannot be read in support of plea of the appellant, is unsustainable, it being contrary to the law laid down in Chottey Lal versus The Collector of Moradabad, AIR1922 Privy Council 279 and Gangaram Ranaba versus Datto Appaji Powar, AIR1956 Bombay 328, insofar as the sale deed, Exhibit D-1, was properly presented before, and was validly registered by, the 2nd respondent in compliance of the order dated 07.01.1983, Exhibit D-2, passed by the Registrar under Sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act.
Nothing more has been urged.
Question involved: Perusal of sub section (2) of Section 75 of the Act reveals that a document (sale deed in this case) has to be presented for registration before the Sub Registrar within 30 days after an order is passed under sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act.
The sale deed, Exhibit D-1, admittedly, was presented before the second respondent on 17.03.1983 even though order under sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act was passed on 07.01.1983 (Exhibit D-2).To Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 11 put the things straight, the sale deed was not presented within thirty days after passing of the order dated 07.01.1983, Exhibit D-2.
Therefore , a question arises “whether registration entered after the expiry of thirty days after the date of order of the Registrar is invalid or only a procedural irregularly curable under Section 87 of the Act?.”.
Learned fiRs.appellate Court discarded the sale deed, Exhibit D-1, saying, “So the present sale deed Ex.D-1 was registered on 17.03.1983 though it was required to be registered within 30 days from 7.1.1983 when the Registrar made the order.
The sale deed was to be got registered upto 7.2.1983 but has been got registered on 17.3.1983 after 30 days of the order and so that sale deed does not create any title and according to Section 75(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 the sale deed is required to be registered within 30 days after making the order by the Registrar which is not done in this case.
So that sale deed does not create any title.
The counsel for respondent quoted AIR1956Bombay 328 but that authority is not applicable to the facts of this case because in that, the sale deed was presented within 30 days but registered later on.
But in this case, from the perusal of the endorsement on Ex.D-1, it is apparent that the sale deed was presented on 17.3.1983 and registered on the same day.
So in view of the above mentioned authority, the sale deed was not properly registered and does not create any title.
So, the finding of the lower court on issue No.4 is wrong and is reversed and it is held that the sale deed was not properly registered and the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.”
.
Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 12 It comes out that the sale deed, Exhibit D-1, when presented before the 2nd respondent on 11.01.1982, he refused to register the same in terms of Section 71 of the Act, whereupon appellant preferred an application before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Act.
The Registrar, after conducting an enquiry in terms of Section 74 of the Act, ordered registration of the sale deed under sub section (1) of Section 75 of the Act, vide his order dated 17.01.1983, Exhibit D-2.
The sale deed, Exhibit D-1, was then presented before, and was registered by, the 2nd respondent on 17.03.1983.
To understand if this was a valid registration or not, it is necessary to have a glance across Section 75 of the Act.
It reads as under:- “75.
Order by Registrar to register and procedure thereon.- (1) if the Registrar finds that the document has been executed and that the said requirements have been complied with, he shall order the document to be registered.
(2) If the document is duly presented for registration within thirty days after the making of such order, the registering officer shall obey the same and thereupon shall, so far as may be practicable, follow the procedure prescribed in sections 58, 59 and 60.
(3) Such registration shall take effect as if the document had been registered when it was fiRs.duly presented for registration.
(4) The Registrar may, for the purpose of any enquiry under section 74, summon and enforce the attendance of witness, and compel them to give Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 13 evidence, as if he were a Civil Court and he may also direct by whom the whole or any part of the costs of any such enquiry shall be paid, and such costs shall be recoverable as if they had been awarded in a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).”
.
In Motahar Ali versus Sk.Abdul Malek and another (supra).one Baharali Mandal alias Bahadur Mandal had an occupancy holding in respect of an area of .47 acres in plot No.334 of Mouza Nehalpur at a rental of Rs.4/8 as.
under the superior landlords, Sk.Md.Abdulla and otheRs.By a document, dated 16th January, 1943, Baharali sublet .40 acres of land held by him to the appellant therein at a rent of Rs.4/8 as.
Although the Potta was executed by Baharali on 16th January, 1943, it was not registered by him, and the appellant presented this document for registration on 13th May, 1943.
Upon registration being refused by Sub-Registrar the appellant filed an appeal which was unsuccessful.
Thereafter the appellant instituted Suit No.46 of 1944 in the Court of the FiRs.Munsif at Basirhat under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act.
This suit was decreed on compromise on 10th November, 1944, and under the terms of the compromise Baharali agreed to register the document within fifteen days; in default, the appellant was given the right to get it registered through Court.
Baharali made default in getting the document registered, whereupon the plaintiff filed an application to Court for sending it to the registration office for registration.
Upon that Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 14 application the learned Munsif deputed one of his officers to present the document to the Sub-Registrar together with a letter directing the Sub-Registrar to register the document.
Acting upon that letter of the learned Munsif, the Sub-Registrar actually registered the document on 3rd April, 1945.
Defendant No.2, Sk.Golam Kibria, purchased the occupancy holding of Baharali by a registered conveyance,Exhibit D, on 3rd February, 1943.
After purchasing the interest of Baharali, defendant No.2 sublet his land to defendant No.1 Sk.
Abdul Malek by a Potta, Exhibit 2, executed and registered on 26th July, 1944.
The plaintiff claimed title on the basis of the Potta, dated 16th January, 1943, which according to him was validly registered under the order of the Court on 3rd April, 1945.
The plaintiff's claim was resisted by the two defendants on the ground that the Potta in favour of the plaintiff was executed under coercion, and that in any case, it was not validly executed and registered, and therefore, conferred no title upon the plaintiff.
Trial Court held that the registration of the Potta on 3rd April, 1945, was valid.
The Lower Appellate Court held that that registration was invalid on two grounds, (a) that the presentation of the Potta to the sub-registrar in pursuance of the compromise decree made by the Munsif, FiRs.Court, Basirhat, on 10th November, 1944, was not valid presentation within the meaning of Section 32 of the Indian Registration Act and (b) that in any event the document having been presented more than thirty days from the date of the decree made by the Munsif, the registering officer had no jurisdiction Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 15 to register the document; and consequently the document was not validly registered.
Upon the above findings the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit instituted by the plaintiff.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court approached the situation thus: “The question whether non-compliance with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 75 of the Indian Registration Act is a defect in procedure or affects the jurisdiction of the registering officer has been considered by this Court in two decisions.
The fiRs.one is the decision in the case of Baban Sahai v.
Udit Narain, 5 Cal LJ188 where it has been held that the registering officer has no jurisdiction to register a document presented after the lapse of thirty days from the date of the order passed by the District Registrar under the fiRs.paragraph of section 75 of the Registration Act, even if the time for registration is extended by a subsequent order of the District Registrar.
It has further been held that it is not a mere matter of procedure and a document registered after the said period of thirty days is not validly registered and creates no title.
This decision was followed by Biswas, J., in the case of Mafizur Rahman v.
Jamila Khatun, 42 Cal WN1174 In this case His Lordship has pointed out that the provisions of the Indian Registration Act regarding the time within which certain acts are to be done are peremptory in character and are not capable of being extended Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 16 in the absence of express provisions in that behalf.
It was contended in the case before Biswas, J., that under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act the District Registrar had jurisdiction to extend time for presenting a document for registration, but that contention was not accepted.
In view of these decisions of this Court which have been followed for over half a century from 1906 to 1956, we are not in a position to accept the argument of Mr.Janah that non-compliance with the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Indian Registration Act is a mere defect in procedure and curable under Section 87 of the Indian Registration Act.
As the appeal fails on this ground, we do not express any opinion on the other points raised by Mr.Janah before us.”
.
A deeper look at the provisions of Section 75 of the Act brings out that this Section does not empower either the Registrar to extend the period for registration of a document beyond thirty days or the Sub Registrar to register such a document if presented before him after the expiry of thirty days after date of passing of the order by the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act.
This, in a way, conveys that the legislature, while enacting this Section, intended to put an embargo on registration of a document under this Section, if the document is not duly presented for registration before the Sub Registrar within the prescribed period of thirty days after passing of the order by the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act, or say registration of a document after the Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 17 expiry of thirty days after passing of order by the Registrar is not valid and is, therefore, of no consequence.
Another circumstance that brings out intention of the legislature to bar registration of a document after the expiry of period of thirty days after the date of passing of an order by the Registrar, is that Section 75(2) of the Act does not permit presentation of the document after the expiry of period of thirty days even in cases where the presenter is prevented from presenting the document within the period of thirty days by reasons beyond his control.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that registration of a document beyond the period of thirty days as prescribed by sub- section (2) of Section 75 of the Act, is no registration and such a document cannot be said to have been validly registered in terms of Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Act.
I am also in agreement with the observations of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Motahar Ali (supra) that omission to register the document within the prescribed period is not curable under Section 87 of the Act.
Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on Chottey Lal versus The Collector of Moradabad and Gangaram Ranaba versus Datto Appaji Powar (supra) is misconceived because in Gangaram Ranaba versus Datto Appaji Powar and others (supra) though, the Registrar had directed registration of the document vide order dated 25.07.1947 but in the meantime, on 08.03.1948 the State had merged with the Indian Union and thereafter, the plaintiff had Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 18 applied to the Inspector General of Registration complaining that he had not been informed about the result of his application to the Registrar and it was on 16th September, 1948 that the document was registered pursuant to the directions issued by the Inspector General of Registration directing that orders of District Registrar be given effect to.
The judgment therefore, is confined to the facts and circumstances of that case which indisputably are different from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In Chottey Lal versus Collector of Moradabad (supra).Privy Council was dealing with the manner of presentation of the document in terms of Section 75(2) of the Act, and registration of the document after expiry of the prescribed period of 30 days was not in issue in that case.
In view of the forgoing discussion, the sale deed 25.06.1981, Exhibit D-1, is deemed to have remained un-registered.
The subject matter of the sale deed was property worth Rs.17,000/- or say, more than Rs.100/- and the sale deed, Ex.D.1, was thus, compulsorily registrable in terms of Section 17 of the Act, which reads as under: “17.
Documents of which registration is compulsory: (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No.XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 19 Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 or this Act came or comes into force, namely:- (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) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent; (e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates 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: PROVIDED that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any leases executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rent reserved by which do not Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 20 exceed fifty rupees.
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to- (i) any composition-deed; or (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint Stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or (iii) any debenture issued by any such company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except insofar as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such company; or (v) any document not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or (vi) any decree or order of a court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 21 proceeding;].or (vii) any grant of immovable property by government; or (viii) any instrument of partition made by a revenue-officer; or (ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or (x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or (xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, (6 of 1890) vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such treasurer of any property; or (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a civil or revenue-officer.
Explanation: A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 22 of the purchase money.
(3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the 1st day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered.”
.
Therefore, in view of above, sale deed, Ex.D1, was required to be registered but as it was presented beyond stipulated period of 30 days and as held above, is rendered of no consequence as being unregistered.
The situation would attract Section 49 of the Act qua non-registration of a document which was required to be registered, which is to the following effect: “49.
Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered: No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882].to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: PROVIDED that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.”
.
Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Rs.No.3505 of 1987 23 Result: Therefore, in the absence of registration, the sale deed, Exhibit D-1, cannot be taken to have conveyed title in favour of the transferee.
Accordingly, findings recorded by the learned fiRs.Appellate Court cannot be faulted and are hereby affirmed.
In the consequence, the appeal fails, and is dismissed.
No costs.
(MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) JUDGE1009.2013 sd Note.
Whether to be referred to the reporter?.
Yes Kumar Sudhir S201309.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh