SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(Pat) 86

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
Gopal Upadhya
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 431 of 1954 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 23, 1955

A District Sub-Registrar authorized to exercise the powers of a Registrar under Section 7(2) of the Registration Act has the power to follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII of the Act, including holding an enquiry under Section 74, and an order passed by such Sub-Registrar under Section 76 is not appealable to the District Registrar under Section 72.

Headnote:

REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 72(2) - SECTION 74 - SECTION 76 - SECTION 35(3) - SECTION 30(1) - SECTION 73 - SECTION 77 - ORDER OF DISTRICT REGISTRAR QUASHING ORDER OF DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR - JURISDICTION - APPEAL - DENIAL OF EXECUTION - PROCEDURE - SCOPE OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 35(3) - AUTHORIZATION OF SUB-REGISTRAR TO EXERCISE POWERS OF REGISTRAR - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

A sale deed was presented for registration to the District Sub-Registrar, who held an enquiry under Section 74 of the Registration Act and found that the document was not executed by the petitioner. The District Registrar, on an application by the opposite party, treated the order of the District Sub-Registrar as an order under Section 71 and allowed an appeal under Section 72, directing the District Sub-Registrar to register the document.

Finding of the Court:

The District Registrar had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the District Sub-Registrar, as no appeal lay to the District Registrar from an order passed by the District Sub-Registrar under Section 76 of the Registration Act.

Issues: Whether the District Registrar had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the District Sub-Registrar?

Ratio Decidendi: The first proviso to Section 35(3) of the Registration Act allows a Registrar to follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII of the Act, including holding an enquiry under Section 74, when the execution of a document is denied. The District Sub-Registrar had the powers of a Registrar by virtue of an authorization order under Section 7(2) of the Act, and therefore, he was entitled to follow the procedure in Part XII. The order of the District Sub-Registrar refusing to register the document was an order passed under Section 76, and no appeal lay from such an order to the District Registrar under Section 72. The only remedy open to the aggrieved party was by way of a suit under Section 77 of the Act.

Final Decision: The order of the District Registrar quashing the order of the District Sub-Registrar was quashed, and a writ was issued accordingly.

Judgment

Das, J.

1. This is an application for the issue of a writ quashing an order passed by the District Registrar, of Shahabad on 10-7-1954. By the said order, the learned District Registrar interfered with an order of the District. Sub-Registrar and directed the District Sub-Registrar, under the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Indian Registration Act, to register a particular document in the following circumstances.

2. One Nathuni Singh alias Chandrama Singh, opposite party No. 3 before us presented a sale deed stated to have been executed by one Gopal Upadhya, petitioner, before us, for registration to the District Sub-Registrar. Execution of the document was denied by the petitioner and the learned District Sub-Registrar to whom the document was presented for registration under Section 30(1) of the Registration Act, proceeded to hold an enquiry under Section 74 of Part 12, Registration Act. On holding such an enquiry the learned District Sub-Registrar was satisfied that the document had not been executed by the present petitioner and that the document was written out by the scribe on blank sheets of paper which contained the signature of the executant from before. On this finding the learned District Sub-Registrar refused registration of the document under the provisions of Section 76, Registration Act.

Against this order of the learned District Sub-Registrar, an application was made to the learned district Registrar. The application purported to be an application under Section 73, Registration Act and was made by opposite party no. 3 namely, Nathuni Singh alias Chandrama Singh. The learned District Registrar held that the learned District Sub-Registrar had no authority to hold an enquiry under Section 74 of part 12, Registration Act.The learned District Registrar, therefore, treated the order of the learned District Sub-Registrar as though it were an order under Section 71, Registration Act and accordingly he treated the application of opposite party No. 3 as an ppeal under Section 72, Registration Act, and, on that basis, lie allowed the appeal and directed the District Sub-Registrar to register the document. The learned District Registrar purported Jo make the direction under Sub-section (2) of Section 72, Registration Act.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended before us that the order of the learned District Registrar was wholly without jurisdiction, and no appeal lay to the District Registrar from the order which the learned District Sub-Registrar had passed. In my opinion, this contention urged ton behalf of the petitioner is correct and the order of the learned District Registrar dated 10-7-1954, by which the learned District Registrar interfered with the order of the learned District Sub-Registrar is wholly without jurisdiction.

4. Sub-section (2), Section 7, Registration Act is in these terms :

"The State Government may amalgamate with any office of a Registrar any office of a Sub-Registrar subordinate to such Registrar and may authorise any Sub-Registrar whose office has been so amalgamated to exercise and perform, in addition to his own powers and duties, all or any of the powers and duties of the Registrar to whom he is subordinate : Provided that no authorization shall enable a Sub-Registrar to hear an appeal against an order passed by himself under this Act."

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to order No. 4 at page 77 in Chapter IV, part 1, of the Bihar Registration Manual, 1946. This order shows that the offices of Sub-Registrars at the headquarters of districts have been amalgamated, with those of the Registrars under Section 7. The order further shows that such Sub-Registrars have been authorised by the State Government to perform all the duties of a Registrar, with the exception of those laid down in Sections 68 and 72. The order further states :

"They may, accordingly, receive, and register documents under Sec.30(1), deal with applications under Sections 25 a


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top