Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, Bela M Trivedi, JJ.
Veena Singh (Dead) Through LR – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2929 of 2022
Decided On : 10-05-2022
(A) Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 72, 73 and 77 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Refusal to register sale-deed on the ground of denial of execution of agreement to sell – Appeal lies to Registrar against order of Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration, except where refusal is made on the ground of a denial of execution – In the event of a refusal by Registrar, suit can be filed by a party in terms of provisions of Section 77 before a civil court, praying for a decree directing the document to be registered – On the other hand, an order of Registrar directing registration of a document is amenable to a challenge under Article 226 of Constitution – While seeking a writ of certiorari, person moving petition before High Court would be entitled to establish whether registration has been ordered in breach of statutory provisions and is contrary to law – Mere existence of remedy available before a civil court, under Section 9 of CPC to avoid the document or to seek a declaration in regard to its invalidity, will not divest a person, who complains that order passed by Registrar for registration of document was contrary to statutory provisions, of remedy which is available in exercise of a court‘s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. (Paras 25, 30 and 33)
(B) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 35(1)(a) – Admission of execution of document – Admission of one‘s signature on a document is not equivalent to admission of its execution – 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 burden upon person denying execution to challenge registration before a civil court or a writ court, since registration will have to be allowed once signature has been admitted. (Paras 57, 58, 60 and 61)
(C) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 74 – Registration of document – Enquiry before Registrar is summary in nature – Registrar, when he conducts an enquiry under Section 74, does not stand constituted as a civil court – Decision of Registrar in ordering document to be registered, or for that matter in refusing to register a document, is not conclusive and is amenable to judicial review – Process which is conducted by Registrar for the purpose of an enquiry under Section 74 cannot be equated to powers of civil court, though certain powers which are entrusted to a civil court are vested with Registrar by provisions of Section 75(4) – A quasi-judicial function is entrusted to Registrar for the purpose of conducting an enquiry under Section 74 – In a situation where an individual admits their signature on a document but denies its execution, Sub-Registrar is bound to refuse registration in accordance with Sections 35(3)(a) of Registration Act – Subsequently, if an application if filed under Section 73, Registrar is entrusted with power of conducting an enquiry of a quasi-judicial nature under Section 74 – If Registrar passes an order refusing registration under Section 76, party presenting document for registration has remedy of filing a civil suit under Section 77 of Registration Act, where a competent civil court will be able to adjudicate upon question of fact conclusively. (Paras 63 and 64)
Facts of the case:
There are two broad issues which arise in the present civil appeal: (i) Whether the recourse by second respondent to Section 72 of 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; and (ii) Whether the appellant‘s admission of her signatures and thumb impressions/fingerprints on the sale deed also amounts to an admission of its execution.
Findings of Court:
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. In doing so, the Single Judge of the High Court has conflated the mere signing of the sale deed with its execution. Such an approach is completely erroneous and cannot be upheld.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses that "execution" is not identical to mere signing; admission of signature does not automatically amount to execution, and full consent/understanding is required. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It analyzes the procedural pathway: Sub-Registrar denial of execution (Section 35(3)(a)) is not subject to Section 72 appeal; Registrar may handle via Section 73/74 with a broader enquiry, culminating in Section 75 if executed and compliant. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court held that Registrar’s enquiry under Section 74 cannot be substituted by or equated to civil court proceedings and that a document once registered cannot be easily cancelled by Registrar; remedy lies in civil suit (Section 77) or writ, depending on context. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The decision clarifies that mislabelling an application as an appeal under Section 72 does not vitiate proceedings if they are effectively Section 73/74 proceedings. (!) (!) (!) - The High Court’s interpretation that registration should not proceed where substantial triable issues (fraud, area/boundaries, possession) exist is rejected; Registrar exceeded jurisdiction by deciding on fraud/undue influence. (!) - The judgment ultimately sets aside the District Registrar’s order directing registration and remits proper considerations, noting pending civil/criminal proceedings. (!)
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:
| A. Introduction |
| B. Submissions of Counsel |
| C. Analysis |
| C.1. Statutory Framework of the Registration Act |
| C.2. Validity of the recourse by the Second Respondent |
| C.3. Meaning of “execution” |
| D. Conclusion |
A Introduction
1. This appeal has arisen from a judgment dated 31 May 2018 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed a petition under Article 226 filed by the appellant, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing an order dated 31 March 2012 of the District Registrar/Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Bareilly1["District Registrar"], who is the first respondent in the present appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has passed away and has been substituted by her legal heir, by an order of this Court dated 9 December 2021.
2. At the heart of this dispute is a certain piece of land admeasuring 3,793 square yards, situated at 110-B, Civil Lines, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, which was owned by one C P Singh. During his life time, he had alienated approximately 415 square yards of the land to four distinct persons. After his death, the appellant, who is his spouse, together with her two daughters, namely Nita Singh and Neelam Singh, and son, Pradeep Singh, became joint owners of the property. A power of attorney was executed on 17 April 2010 in favour of the appellant by her daughters and son, which is stated to have been cancelled on 27 September 2011.
3. The appellant is alleged to have entered into two agreements with a developer - Gujral Associates, who is the second respondent in the present appeal: (i) the first was allegedly a development agreement in respect of an area admeasuring 1000 square meters in the front portion of the land. It is important to note that the nature of this agreement is disputed by the second respondent (who alleges that it was instead an agreement to sell), but that dispute is not before this Court in the present appeal; and (ii) the second was an agreement to sell for an area admeasuring 839.4 square meters in the rear portion of the land for a sale consideration of Rs 1.6 crores, which was executed on 22 October 2010. On the other hand, the second respondent contends that this agreement to sell was for an area admeasuring 1839.4 square meters. It is also important to note that the stamp duty in the amount of Rs 39,61,000 (according to counsel for the second respondent) was paid on the agreement on the basis of the circle rate of the land, i.e., Rs 6,11,53,000.
4. Between October 2010 and 3 January 2011, the second respondent allegedly paid the appellant a sum of Rs 93 lakhs in twelve instalments. A cheque for the remaining sum of Rs 67 lakhs was handed over to the appellant by the second respondent on 20 June 2011. The appellant has stated that she did not encash this cheque upon realising that a fraud had been committed upon her. On the same date, a sale deed was purported to have been executed by the appellant in favour of the second respondent based upon the agreement to sell and upon the payment of the remaining sale consideration. The execution and registration of this sale deed forms the bedrock of the dispute in the present appeal.
5. On 5 December 2011, the second respondent filed an application seeking permission to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, on 15 December 2011, they presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar-I, Bareilly. In response to a notice from the Sub-Registrar, the appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 17 February 2012 and submitted an objection in writing, with a request not to execute the incomplete and forged sale deed in favour of the second respondent. The appellant stated that she w
The Registrar's decision under the Registration Act is summary in nature and limited in operation, and the Registrar's jurisdiction is narrower compared to the plenary jurisdiction of the Civil Court....
The distinction between signing and executing a document is crucial; mere signature admission does not equate to execution, impacting the validity of registration.
The Sub Registrar's role is administrative and limited to ensuring compliance with statutory formalities, and he does not have the authority to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a ....
The burden of proof in a property dispute lies on the person claiming the title, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act is necessary for the validity of a sale deed and reg....
The Sub-Registrar's duty is to verify the identity of the executant and their admission of execution, not to ascertain the title of the property being sold.
Authentic execution and full consideration are essential for the registration of a sale deed, and mere signature on a blank paper does not suffice to validate execution.
(1) Challenge to very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on execution, is congenital in nature.(2) Examining whether Registering Authority did someth....
The Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration of a document solely due to title disputes unless it is proven the vendor has no title over the property in question.
The Sub Registrar must register a sale deed if procedural requirements are met, regardless of title disputes, as they lack adjudicative authority regarding ownership.
The Sub-Registrar must independently decide on the registrability of a deed without needing clarification from the District Registrar, as their investigation into title is not permissible under law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
