Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
Rajni Tandon
Versus
Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar & Another
CIVIL APPEAL No.4671 OF 2004
Decided On : 29-07-2009
AIR 1958 AP 107; AIR 1961 Cal. 540 - Disapproved.
Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 32 and 33 - Object of registration is designed to guard against fraud by obtaining a contemporaneous publication and an unimpeachable record of each document - No allegation of fraud raised - As such, Registration Officer had only to satisfy himself that document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been signed - Registrar upon being so satisfied and upon being presented with a document to be registered had to proceed with registration of the same. (Para 26)
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 32 and 33 - Registration of document - Only in case where the person(s) signing document cannot present document before Registering Officer and gives a power of attorney to another to present document that provisions of Section 33 get attracted - It is only in such a case, that power of attorney has to be necessarily executed and authenticated in manner provided u/s 33(1)(a). (Para 29)
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 33 - Registration of document - Provision of Section 33 only apply where person presenting a document is general attorney of person executing it, and not where it is presented for registration by actual executant, even though he may have executed it as agent for some one else. (Paras 30 and 31)
Judgment :
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1.1. The present Civil Appeal raises questions relating to interpretation of Section 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2.2. The dispute pertains to a Flat situated on the ground floor of a building commonly known as "Nilachal" at Tollygunge, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The appellant by virtue of a Registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990 purchased the said premises from one Sri Nandlal Tantia (also referred to as Shri N. L. Tantia), Karta of M/s R. L. Tantia & Sons (HUF). The said Deed of Conveyance was executed by the constituted attorney of Shri N. L. Tantia, Shri Indra Kumar Halani, on the basis of a Power of Attorney). It is pertinent of mention herein that the said premises was purchased by Shri Nandlal Tantia in his capacity as a Karta of M/s R. L. Tantia and sons (HUF) in August 1978. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar (Predecessor in interest of Respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed to stay free of charge in the said premises from October, 1978 as a personal gesture of Shri Nandlal Tantia as a licensee only. Sri N. L. Tantia, Karta of M/s R. L. Tantia & Sons intimated the Society about their ownership in the said premises and asked them to send all future correspondence and maintenance bills in their name. They also informed the society that Mrs. Abha Rani Ghosh Dastidar was temporarily staying in the said premises as a licensee.
3.3. It is the case of the Appellant that all records / documents, conveyance deed, corporation records, maintenance bills of the "Nilachal Housing Society" in which the said premises was located, resolution of the "Nilachal Housing Society" under the West Bengal Apartment Owners Act giving the detailed list of flat owners, show N. L. Tantia /
R. L. Tantia and Sons as the owner of the said premises.
1.4. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar served a notice in the year 1982 on the Society as to why maintenance bills etc. were not made out in her name. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar thereafter filed Civil Suit No. 322 of 1982 against the Society asking them to include her name as the owner and send all correspondence, maintenance bills etc to her. The President and Secretary of the Housing Society filed a reply in this Suit stating that Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh, Dastidar could not be recognized as a owner in absence of any document to prove her ownership. She was asked to submit better documents proving her ownership.
.5. M/s. R. L. Tantia & Sons (HUF) served a notice dated 20.04.1983 to Mrs. Ava Rani
.Ghosh Dastidar revoking the licence granted and asking for vacant possession of the flat. When Smt. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar refused to vacate the flat, Mr. Nandalal Tantia filed Suit No. 174 of 1983 for eviction against her.
2.6. The Appellant herein after coming to know that a Suit for Eviction filed by his Predecessor in interest was pending moved an Application for impleadment as a party. This application for impleadment filed by the Appellant was rejected. The Title Suit No. 174 of 1983 filed by the erstwhile owner Mr. Nandlal Tantia was dismissed on 29.01.1991 for default due to the fact that Sri. N. L. Tantia having sold the property to the Appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter.
3.7. The Appellant after being refused to be made a party in Suit for Eviction filed a fresh Suit in May 1990 for Eviction, Possession and Damages for unauthorized occupation of the property against the Respondents. This Suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 24 of 1991.
4.8. Respondent No. 2 alone contested the Suit. The said defendant contended that Nandlal Tantia was not the owner of the Suit property and he had no right title and interest therein and as such the Appellant did not acquire any right, title and interest in the Suit premises by virtue of her purchase of the same by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990. The said Respondent further made out a case for acquisition of title by adverse pos
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.