Back
Manipur High Court
R. S. BINDRA, J.
Laisangthem Chaoba Singh
Versus
Thongam Ningol Yumnam Ongbi Ketuki Devi
Second Appeal No. 15 of 1967q
Decided On : 27-01-1970
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTIONS 71, 72, 73, 74 - REGISTRATION OF MORTGAGE DEED - DENIAL OF EXECUTION - JURISDICTION OF REGISTRAR - APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,300/- against the defendant, alleging that the defendant had executed a mortgage deed for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with interest at the rate of 3% per month. The defendant denied the execution of the mortgage deed and claimed that the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the deed due to his denial. The plaintiff appealed to the Registrar, who directed the Sub-Registrar to register the deed. The defendant challenged the Registrar's order, arguing that it was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Registrar's order was valid and that the mortgage deed was duly registered. The court found that the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the deed not because the defendant had denied its execution, but because the defendant had failed to appear before him. The court also held that the plaintiff had correctly filed an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, as the refusal was not based on denial of execution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to grant registration in appeal? 2. Whether the Registrar's order was void due to lack of enquiry under the law? 3. Whether the defendant had borrowed Rs. 3,000/- from the plaintiff by executing the alleged mortgage deed? 4. Whether the mortgage deed was genuine?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Sections 71, 72, 73, and 74 of the Registration Act to determine the appropriate procedure for registration of a document when the Sub-Registrar refuses registration. 2. The court held that the Registrar had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Section 72 of the Act since the refusal was not based on denial of execution. 3. The court found that the Registrar's order was valid as it was not mandatory for the Registrar to hold an enquiry under Section 74 of the Act in the absence of denial of execution. 4. The court held that the defendant's non-appearance before the Sub-Registrar did not amount to denial of execution and that the plaintiff had correctly filed an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the first appellate court, and confirmed the decree made by the trial court. The appellant was also awarded the costs of the appeal and the first appellate court.
On the basis of mortgage deed dated 11-10-1956 L. Chaoba Singh filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,300/- against Y. Ibomcha Singh. The mortgage deed, it was alleged, had been executed for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-and that that sum was to carry interest at the rate of 3 per cent per month.
2. The suit was resisted by Ibomcha Singh who denied that he had taken Rs. 3,000/- from the plaintiff or had executed mortgage deed in his favour. The mortgage deed was described as a forged document. It was alleged further that the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the mortgage deed, that the plaintiff had preferred an appeal against that order of the Sub-Registrar to the Registrar Shri W. C. Sikka, and that despite the denial of execution of the mortgage deed by Ibomcha Singh, Shri Sikka illegally and without jurisdiction directed the document to be registered. The defendant pleaded further that since the mortgage deed had been illegally registered at the direction of an officer who had no jurisdiction in the matter, no suit could be founded on the basis thereof.
3. The trial Court settled the following issues between the parties:
(1) Had the registering Officer granting registration in appeal no jurisdiction to grant registration? If so, its effect on the admissibility of the document?
(1-A) Is the order of the Registrar granting registration of the deed void because of its being passed without enquiry under the law?
(2) Did the defendant borrow Rs. 3,000/-from the plaintiff by executing the alleged mortgage deed? Is the deed genuine?
(3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
Issues Nos. 1, 1-A and 2 were decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff with the consequence that the suit was decreed with costs. The decretal amount, it was directed, shall carry future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The defendant Ibomcha Singh having died during the pendency of the suit, his representatives were brought on the record. Those representatives having felt aggrieved with the decree made by the trial Court filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge. The appeal came up for hearing before Shri M. H. Khan, Additional District Judge, Manipur. Shri Khan accepted the contention of the defendants that the order dated 9-9-1957 by which the Registrar Shri Sikka had directed the registration of the deed was illegal. He therefore held that the deed could not be said to have been registered in the eye of law. Towards the close of the arguments before Shri Khan, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff for permission to amend the plaint to enable the plaintiff to claim decree for the amount advanced to Ibomcha Singh independent of the mortgage transaction. That application was accepted by Shri Khan.
He, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial Court and remanded the case to him with the direction that after the amended plaint and the written statement were filed, the trial Court shall formulate the additional issues and then dispose of the suit in the light of the evidence led. The plaintiff Chaoba Singh felt aggrieved with the order of Shri Khan and so filed the instant second appeal.
4. The only point that was debated in this Court was whether the order dated 9-9-1957 of the Registrar Shri Sikka was bad in law and without jurisdiction. Shri Ibopishak Singh, representing the defendants, submitted that the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the mortgage deed for the reason that Ibomcha Singh had denied the execution thereof and that in such circumstances Chaoba Singh, the plaintiff, could have moved an application before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Registration Act rather than to file an appeal under Section 72 of the Act as done by him. The counsel urged further that assuming that the Registrar could have treated the memorandum of appeal filed under Section 72 as an application under Section 73, still the order made by him was invalid because it was obligatory for the Registrar to hold an e
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
