Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 1428
2008(7) Supreme 143
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Naren Chandra Naskar — Appellant
versus
Arun Bhattacharya & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5858 of 2008
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3823 of 2007)
Decided on : 24-09-2008
For the Appellant :Pradeep Kr. ghosh, Sr. Adv., Abhijeet Chatterjee, Ms. P. Mukherjee, Tarun Das Sharma, Subhodh Kr. Pathak and Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates..
For the Respondents:Dhruv Mehta, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Tara Chandra Sharma and Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Enquiry conducted on direction of High Court cannot be questioned.
The complainant cannot be directed to enquire into his own complaint.
Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Enquiry conducted by the District Registrar under the directions of the High Court cannot be called into question on the ground that the Registration Act did not provide for such enquiry to be conducted by the said officer. (Para 23)
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 23 Rule 1 – In a suit regarding genuineness of a sale deed the right of the parties in the land forming subject matter of the deed cannot be gone into any further – However, the question relating to the genuineness of the Sale Deed has to be and shall be decided in the suit. (Para 24)
(c) Administration of Justice – High Court directing to decide genuineness of the sale deeds in question – District Registrar recording a finding regarding the deed of the respondent no.1 only – No finding on Appellant’s deed – Enquiry not in compliance of High Court’s direction. (Para 25)
(d) Judicial Propriety – High Court directing the Complainant Officer to enquire into the complaint – Not proper. (Para 25)
Facts of the case :
1. The District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, filed a complaint with regard to the identical registration details and the fact that the sale deed of the respondent No.1 was not traceable in the records of the office of the complainant. Claiming the deed of the appellant herein to have been forged and wrongfully placed in Volume 75 of 1989 in Index I, maintained in the District Registrar’s office, Alipore, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court.
2. The learned Single Judge held that since the investigation was on, no further order was required to be passed on the writ petition and disposed of the same.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent herein filed a Mandamus Appeal. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, to conduct an enquiry and if it appeared that the deed of the respondent No.1 herein was a genuine document, to place the copy of the same at the appropriate place of the Book Volume. It was also observed that in the event the Deed of the respondent No.1 was not found to be genuine, the respondent No.2 would be required to take appropriate action against the said respondent.
Finding of the Court :
Enquiry conducted on direction of High Court cannot be questioned.
Not examining appellant’s sale deed makes the Registrar’s enquiry in complete.
High Court erred in directing the Complainant Registrar to enquire into his own complaint.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Judgment
Altamas Kabir, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Two Conveyances in respect of two different plots of land, both shown to have been registered before the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, on 14.3.1989, being Deed No.3203 of 1989 and recorded in Book No.1, Volume No.75, at Pages 167-174, have given rise to Alipore Police Station Case No.110 of 2006. The said complaint was filed by Shri S.K. Debnath, the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, in respect whereof a charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant herein alleging the commission of offences under Sections 471/420 IPC. Both the purchasers claimed to be in undisturbed possession of the lands forming the subject matter of their respective Conveyances.
3. The controversy relating to the complaint filed by the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, is with regard to the identical registration details and the fact that the sale deed of the respondent No.1 was not traceable in the records of the office of the complainant. Claiming the deed of the appellant herein to have been forged and wrongfully placed in Volume 75 of 1989 in Index I, maintained in the District Registrar’s office, Alipore, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court, inter alia, alleging that his Deed, which was the genuine deed, had been removed from the records and replaced with the forged deed of the appellant herein. He therefore, prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents, and, in particular, the respondent No.2, to remove the appellant’s deed from the records and to restore his deed in its place. The other relief sought for by the respondent No.1 herein was for a direction upon the respondent No.4, the Officer in-Charge, Alipore Police Station, South 24 Parganas, to cause a thorough inquiry on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, and to proceed against the culprits in accordance with the law.
4. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition took note of the fact that action had been taken on the basis of the complaint made by the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas and that Alipore Police Station Case No.110 dated 27.5.2006 had been instituted under Sections 467/468/471/420 and 120-B IPC. It was also noted that further investigation into the complaint was being conducted.
5. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge held that since the investigation was on, no further Order was required to be passed on the writ petition and disposed of the same.
6. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent herein filed a Mandamus Appeal (F.M.A. No.816 of 2006), which was heard and disposed of on 9.11.2006. Taking note of the case of the respondent No.1 that he had come to learn from the proposed buyer that his sale deed was not traceable in the concerned Volume Register maintained in the Registration Office and that another sale deed pertaining to a totally separate plot of land with the identical registration details was in the records, the High Court felt that the learned Single Judge ought not to have rejected the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 only on the ground that a criminal case is pending. Accordingly, while disposing of the appeal the Division Bench set aside the Order of the learned Single Judge and directed the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, to conduct an enquiry and if it appeared that the deed of the respondent No.1 herein was a genuine document, to place the copy of the same at the appropriate place of the Book Volume. It was also observed that in the event the Deed of the respondent No.1 was not found to be genuine, the respondent No.2 would be required to take appropriate action against the said respondent.
7. The special leave petition has been filed against the said Order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court disposing of the writ appeal of the respondent No.1. It appears that in terms of the Order of the Division Benc
