The presumption of validity attaching to actions of an authority and the time limits and procedures outlined in the Registration Act and Delhi Registration Rules for document registration are crucial in determining the validity of registered documents and addressing delays in legal proceedings.

( 1 ) IN this Suit the Plaintiff has prayed that four instruments, being two Gift Deeds and two Relinquishment Deeds, all dated 27th february, 2002 be declared void and cancelled and be delivered to the Plaintiffs; and for the issuing of a Perpetual Injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from dealing in any manner with the properties covered by these four Deeds. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1 are real brothers and the aforementioned Deeds have the effect of conveying/transferring properties by these plaintiffs to Defendant No. 1. The Plaint has been filed on 16th October, 2003, almost twenty months after the execution of these documents.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for Defendant No. 1 has strongly contended that there are various inconsistencies, of great import, in the sequence of events narrated in the Plaint and in documents, and in the arguments put forward on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Broadly stated the Plaintiffs narration of events is that whilst all four documents were signed and executed on 27th February, 2002, a misunderstanding had occurred on that date itself and therefore the documents ought not to have been accorded registration under the Registration Act. Mr. Singhla had no doubt attempted to argue contrary to the sequence of events mentioned in the letter of Plaintiff no. 2, dated 11. 3. 2002, addressed to the sub-Registrar, Sub-District VI-B, Pitam Pura, delhi. It is indeed of significance that this letter had been authored a fortnight after the alleged misunderstanding between the brothers, even though the registration of the four documents would undisputably have far-reaching consequences. This conduct is contrary to normal human reaction. The plaintiffs must be held to the contents of the said letter. The letter states thus:

"with due respect it is stated that on 27. 2. 2002, I, Raj Kumar Ahuja, along with my brother Shri Subhash Ahuja and my nephew Sunny Ahuja and niece ruchi Ahuja, along with Mr. Ashok Ahuja came to your office to execute a gift deed in favour of Mr. Ashok Ahuja (Brother ). Although we all have signed all the documents along with thumb impression and Photographs with identification i. e. passport No. etc. on the deed and after completing all the formalities done and Regd. Slip of document had also been issued on the date i. e. 27. 2. 2002 during this course due to some misunderstanding Mr. Ashok Ahuja threatened us and snatched all documents prepared by the document writer (signed by all of us), before presenting before you. Whereas the same documents had not been executed on that day but I am afraid that Mr. Ashok Ahuja whose favour all the property has to be transferred, shall execute the same documents through other source or way without out presence before you. I therefore humbly request you to please look into the matter personally so that the document could not execute without our presence in favour of Mr. Ashok Ahuja. Thanking you in anticipation for an early action in this regard. "it is therefore beyond the pale of controversy, at least at this stage of the litigation, that the documents were signed and presented for registration since otherwise there would be no cause or occasion for the issuance of the "regd. Slip of documents". It is also obvious that Plaintiff No. 2 has used the word "executed" as synonymous with "registered", since otherwise the contents of the letter would be mutually destructive.

( 3 ) ON a perusal of the previous proceedings, it emerges that my learned Brother, C. K. Mahajan, 1 had summoned the Sub-Registrar and had received his explanation as to why the documents presented for registration on 27th February, 2002, in respect of which the registration Slip had been issued eventually came to be registered/delivered to Defendant no. 1 on 13. 11. 2002 and/or 20. 11. 2002. I must assure that the explanation was found to be satisfactory as no further directions had been asked for or issued in this context, as also the fact that the inte