Non-compliance with registration formalities does not invalidate a registered deed, and the right of pre-emption under S. 22 of the Hindu Succession Act does not apply after the property has been partitioned.

This second appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1999 passed by Shri R. K. Ghosh, learned the then Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala dismissing the appeal of the defendant-appellants.

2. I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B. B. Deb, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The plaintiffs father and Smt. Raj Rani Roy, defendant No. 10 had the share in the disputed land situated at Bishalgarh, West Tripura district. Smt. Raj Rani Roy, defendant No. 10 herself and on behalf of the defendant Nos. 2 to 9 transferred the suit property to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Krishnapada Roy and Smt. Reba Roy on 3-7-1990. It is alleged that the transferee were the tenants in occupation of the property from before. The sale deed was executed at Calcutta under the provisions of S. 28 of the Registration Act. Subsequently, the said property was again transferred by the defendant Nos. 1 to 10 to plaintiff on 5-9-1990. It is not in dispute that the family property had been partitioned by way of compromise in a title suit. On 25-5-1996. The plaintiff filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division assailing the sale deed dated 3-7-1990 executed by defendant Nos. 5 to 9 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. In appeal, the decree has been affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, the appeal before this Court.

3A. The first grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned sale deed was executed and registered at Calcutta while the property is situated in Tripura. Under the provisions of S. 28 of the Registration Act, the deed ought to have been registered at Tripura. However, under S. 30 of the said Act, the deed can be executed and registered in a Presidency town. But after the execution and registration of the document, the compliance of the provisions of S. 67 of the said Act is necessary which has not been done in the instant case. Section 67 of the Registration Act provides as under :-

"S. 67. Procedure after registration under S. 30, sub-section (2)- On any document being registered under S. 30, sub-section (2), a copy of such document and of the endorsements and certificate thereon shall be forwarded to every Registrar within whose district any part of the property to which the instrument relates is situate, and the Registrar receiving such copy shall follow the procedure prescribed for him in S. 66, sub-section (1)."

4. A plain reading of the S. 67 of the Registration Act clearly shows that when a certain document is registered under S. 30(2) of the said Act in the Presidency town, a copy of such document and certificate thereon shall be forwarded to every Registrar within whose district any part of the property to which the instrument relates is situate and the Registrar receiving such copy shall follow the procedure prescribed for him under S. 66(1) of the Act. Section 66(1) provides that on registering any non-testamentary document relating to immovable property, the Registrar shall forward a memorandum of such document to each Sub-Registrar subordinate to himself in whose sub-district any part of the property is situate. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the provisions of Ss. 67 and 66(1) of the Registration Act have not been complied with in the present case and as such, the impugned sale deed is invalid and inoperative. About the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be observed that Ss. 66(1) and 67 of the Registration Act provide for performance of certain formalities when a document is registered outside the district where the property situate, obviously for the purpose of maintenance of records about the transfer/assignment of the property in the district where the property is situated. These two sections or any other section of the Registration Act do not envisage any consequences for non-compliance of the provisions of S. 67 or S. 66(1) of the Act,