L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two revisions are between the same parties, and arise out of the same suit. Hence, they are dealt with, under a common judgment.
2. The respondent filed O.S. No. 638 of 2006 in the Court of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners, for the relief of perpetual injunction. The subject-matter of the suit is an item of urban property. The respondent asserted title upon it, and alleged that the petitioners are interfering with his possession over it, without any basis. The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed independent title, in respect of that property, on the strength of a purchase made by their predecessor-in-title, by name Sri T. Ramaiah Chowdary, in an auction conducted by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mumbai (for short, 'the Commissioner').
3. The petitioners filed I.A. No. 1086 of 2008, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to permit them to lead secondary evidence, by filing a certified copy of the sale certificate, dated 21-01-1963. Obviously, with a view to prove the sale certificate, dated 21-01-1963, they filed I.A. No. 1158 of 2008, under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., with a prayer to summon the corrigendum dated 10-12-1965, as well as the records relating to the sale certificate dated 21-01-1963, from the office of the District Registrar, Hyderabad, as well as the Joint Registrar, Banjara Hills. The applications were opposed by the respondent. It was urged that the certificate relied upon by the petitioners cannot be treated as secondary evidence, nor does it form part of the record of the registration, in the City of Hyderabad. An objection was also raised, on the ground that the document was not registered in accordance with law, and that it is not stamped. The trial Court dismissed both the applications through separate orders, dated 19-11-2008. C.R.P. No. 5796 of 2008 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 1158 of 2008, and C.R.P. No. 33 of 2009 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 1086 of 2008.
4. Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the auction sale was conducted by the Commissioner in the year 1965, and a sale certificate, as required under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the 1954 Act'), was issued in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-title, by name, Ramaiah Chowdary. She contends that, in view of special circumstances, under which the sale is conducted, under that Act, copies of sale certificates are required to be forwarded to various authorities, within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is situated, and that it is a matter of record that one such copy was forwarded to the concerned Registrar's Office at Hyderabad. She submits that the transactions of this nature do not need registration, and once a sale certificate is required to be made part of Book No. 1, under the Registration Act 1908, the certificate is comparable to a sale deed. It is also her case that there is no requirement as to the entering of details of the certificate in Book No. 1, when it is already made part of that very book. She has placed reliance upon certain precedents, in support of her contention.
5. Sri Murlinarayan Bung. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that, even according to the petitioners, a sale certificate, in original, was issued in favour of Ramaiah Chowdary, and what was forwarded to the office of Registrar, was, only a copy of it. He contends that a certified copy of a copy cannot be received as secondary evidence. Learned Counsel further submits that, once a sale has taken place, as pleaded by the respondent (sic. petitioners), it is essential that it must be registered, and unless the sale certificate was registered in accordance with law, it cannot be received in evidence, in view of the prohibition contained in Section 17 of the Registration Act. He also submits that the petitioners secured the certificates from two different offices, which throw doubts upon the genuinity thereof, and that the trial Court had recorded cogent reasons, for dismissing the applications.
6. The suit filed by the respondent is the one, for perpetual injunction. Determination of title does not become necessary in such matters. Reference to various documents by the parties is, at the most, to prove their possession over it. Once the scope of the suit itself is limited, the scrutiny of the documents must be undertaken, keeping the same in view. Different connotations would have arisen, had the suit been the one, for declaration of title, and ancillary reliefs.
7. The respondent, no doubt, claimed his own title to the property and sued the petitioners herein. However, the present suit does not permit of adjudication, on that question.
8. While opposing the claim made by the respondent, the petitioners made an attempt to trace the origin of their right, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. According to them, the property was held by a person, who left the country, and after taking control of the same, the Commissioner, who was appointed under the 1954 Act, took over it, as 'evacuee property'. The sale thereof was conducted and a sale certificate dated 21-01-1963 was issued to Mr. Ramaiah Chowdary, in exercise of power under Section 20 of the 1954 Act. The form of sale certificate is prescribed under the Rules. The manner in which the certificate shall be issued is stipulated under Sub-rule (15) of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules'). The provision reads as under:
When the purchase price has been realized in full from the auction purchaser, the Managing Officer shall issue to him a sale certificate in the form specified in Appendix XXXII or XXXIII, as the case may be. A certified copy of the sale certificate shall be sent by him to the Registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property to which the certificate relates is situated. If the auction purchaser is a displaced person and has associated with him self any other displaced person having a verified claim whose net compensation is to be adjusted in whole or in part against the purchase price, the sale certificate shall be made out jointly in the name of all such persons and shall specify the extent of interest of each in the property.
9. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 equates the sale by the Commissioner to a revenue sale, and brings it, on par with the transaction under Sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Registration Act. Section 89 of that Act prescribes the procedure to be followed for making the sale certificate etc., as part of the books, maintained under the Act. It reads as under:
89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to Registering Officers and filed:
(1) Every officer granting a loan under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, shall send a copy of his order to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the land to be improved or of the land to be granted as collateral security, is situate, and such Registering Officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1 or get scanned.
(2) Every Court granting a certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall send a copy of such certificate to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1 or get scanned.
(3) Every officer granting a loan under the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1884, shall send a copy of any instrument whereby immovable property is mortgaged for the purpose of securing the repayment of the loan, and, if any such property is mortgaged for the same purpose in the order of granting the loan, a copy also of that order, to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any such Registering Officer shall file the copy or copies, as the case may be, in his Book No. 1 or get scanned.
(4) Every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the while or any part of the property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1 or get scanned.
Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the 1054 Act reads as under:Every managing officer or managing corporation selling any immovable property by public auction under Sub-section (91) shall be deemed to be a Revenue Officer within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908).
10. From a perusal of Rule 90(15) of the Rules, it becomes clear that, apart from issuing the sale certificate to the persons in whose favour the sale is finalized, the concerned authority shall forward copies thereof, to the Registering Officer, within whose jurisdiction the whole, or any part of the property covered by the certificate, is situate. If this provision is read with Sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Registration Act, it emerges that a sale certificate so forwarded, shall become part of Book No. 1, maintained under the Act. Rule 113 of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, directs that, every entry of a registered document shall be an exact copy of the original. This provision would have different implications for the documents, which are presented for registration in the ordinary course, and a sale certificate, that is made part of Book No. 1. As regards the former, the contents of the documents are required to be entered in Book No. 1. However, a sale certificate, once it is made part of Book No. 1, does not need to be reproduced, or entered separately.
11. The petitioners specifically pleaded that the copy of the sale certificate was forwarded to the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad, in addition to the erstwhile Municipality of Hyderabad and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Mumbai. On an application made by the petitioners, the Joint Sub-Registrar Hyderabad South, furnished a copy of the sale certificate, dated 26-01-1963. It was clearly mentioned that it was compared with the original in their possession, and was found to be correct.
12. Being a certified copy issued under the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, the document relied upon by the petitioners answers the description of secondary evidence under Section 63(1) of the Evidence Act. The trial Court has undertaken extensive discussion to satisfy itself, as to whether the document can be treated as certified copy. It has posed certain questions to itself, such as, that, if the original is lost, from where did the certified copy come? Reference was made to a fairly large number of precedents, in this regard.
13. This Court is of the view that, once an authority under an enactment issues a certified copy, the Court cannot undertake further verification, as to the character of the document. It is a different thing that the original records can be summoned to verify whether he certified copy is true. The examination of the matters of this nature, beyond a point, is prone to be an exercise of audit, as to the functioning of the Sub-Registrars, or that of the Commissioner.
14. Another objection raised by the respondent is, that the document was not registered. There is a clear answer to this objection, in the form of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer and Ors. : AIR 1991 S.C. 1880. Even the learned Senior Civil Judge took the view that, in view of the said judgment, it cannot be insisted that a sale certificate must be registered. Therefore, the objection, referable to Section 17 of the Registration Act; cannot be accepted.
15. The third aspect is about the stamp duty. Here again, the respondent stands on a weak wicket. The 1954 Act contains a specific provision, exempting the transactions from the registration fee and stamp duties. The obligation to pay stamp duty in the transactions covered under that Act, is placed upon the Government. Rule 118 of the Rules, reads as under:
Stamp duty to be paid by Government:-The stamp duty payable in respect of any document relating to the transfer of any property under these rules shall be payable by the Government.
16. At any rate, the adequacy of stamp duty on a document, which was already covered by the various provisions of the Registration Act; cannot be examined, that too, when certified copy of a document is filed. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.
17. The revisions are accordingly allowed, and the orders under revisions are set aside. Consequently, I.A. Nos. 1086 and 1158 of 2008 are allowed.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.