Back
Judges : G.SIVARAJAN
K.Eshaque - Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Kozhikode - Respondent
Case No : OP No 24944 of 2001
Decided On : 10/15/2001
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: K.P. Balasubramanyan & Nirmal Sacheendran, Advocates. For the Respondent: P.C. Iype, Advocate.
Registration Act, 1908 –Sections 33, 35, 21, 23, 28, 32, 74, 23, 24, 25, 26, 69, 74, 25 –Issue to register document –learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the 1st respondent – The 2nd respondent, being the executor of Ext. P7 document, is only a formal party and hence notice is not issued to the said respondent –The counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P7 document executed by the 2nd respondent and presented before the 1st respondent for registration satisfied all the requirements of the Registration Act and therefore, the 1st respondent was bound to register the said document without any verification either with regard to title or with regard to possession of the property sought to be conveyed by the said document –The counsel also submitted that the petitioner will produce the original of the power of attorney executed by the 2nd respondent and registered before registration authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu before the 1st respondent which will satisfy the requirement of S. 33 of the Act mentioned above –Held, The legal position with regard to the title to the property that is being conveyed by the document under registration is clearly stated by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the passage extracted above – It is in those circumstances, the Registration Act did not make any provision authorising the registering authority to satisfy about the title of the executants of the document before registration –In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the 1st respondent was not justified in requiring the petitioner to produce a possession certificate obtained from the competent authority with regard to the possession of the property by the executor i.e,. the 2nd respondent –If the petitioner produces the original of power of attorney executed by the 2nd respondent and registered in the Sub Registry Office having jurisdiction over the place where the 2nd respondent is residing in Tamil Nadu, the same will be recognised and accepted as contemplated under S. 33 of the Act – In the above circumstances, Court hold that it is not necessary for the petitioner to produce any possession certificate as sought for by the 1st respondent in Ext. P8 objection slip – If the petitioner complies with the above and if the other requirements of the Registration Act are satisfied, the 1st respondent will register Ext. P1 document immediately thereafter –Petition allowed
G. Sivarajan, J.
The 2nd respondent herein had executed a sale deed (Ext.P7) in favour of the petitioner on 1-4-2001 conveying superstructure with lease hold rights in respect of an extent on 13.33 cents in old survey No. 76/4A (resurvey No.19.20.584, 585) and another extent of 29 cents in survey No.58/5(resurvey No.19.20.585,586 and 587)both of Kasaba Village Kozhikode Taluk in Kozhikode District. The said document was produced before the Ist respondent for registration. The grievance of the petitioner in that the Ist respondent has issued an objection slip dt.15-6-2001 (Ext.P8) stating that on inspection of the document (Ext.P7)it is revealed that the property described in the document 18 cents comprised in resurvey 19.20.535 is Kallaipuzha and 2 cents in survey No. 586 is road and 79 cents in survey No. 587 is river puramboke as recorded in the registers maintained by the Ist respondent . The petitioner was directed to produce evidence regarding the possession of the said properties by the 2nd respondent for execution of Ext.P1 sale deed must satify the requirement of Sec.33 of the Registration Act.
2. According to the petitioner, the Ist respondent was not justified in requiring the petitioner to produce possession certificate in respect of the property which is sought to be conveyed. It is also stated that the Ist respondent has no authority under the Registration Act to enquire into the title or possession over the property sought to be conveyed as per the document and that under Sec.35 of the said Act the Ist respondent is bound to register the document if the conditions stipulated in the said Act the Ist respondent is bound to register the document if the conditions stipulated in the said sections are complied with. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 document satisfied all the requirements of the Registration Act and therefore the Ist respondent cannot refuse the registration of the said document for reasons other than what is provided under Sec.21,23,28,32,35 and 74 of the said Act.
3. A statement is filed on behalf of the Ist respondent. The statement relies on a circular dt.12-2-2001 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Thrivananthpuram. It is stated therein that difficulties and loss of money had been experienced by the public on account of registration of documents without verifying actual title of the executants of the documents and also without verifying the encumbrance, if any, in respect of the properties sought to be transferred. In the above circumstances directions are issued to the registering authorities to verify the prior documents to satisfy the right of the executants of the document over the property sought to be transferred at the time of registration. It was also provided that if the document is executed through a power of attorney must also be verified authorizes the transfer of the property in question. It also provides that if nay doubt arises regarding any of the matters mentioned above, the same must be intimated to the petitioner in writing and that the document shall be executed only after clearing such doubts. In the light of the said circular the stand of the Ist respondent is that since there is a doubt with regard to the title It also provides that if any doubt arises regarding any of the matters mentioned above, the same must be intimated to the petitioner in writing and that the document shall be executed only after clearing such doubts. In the light of the said circular the stand of the Ist respondent is that since there is a doubt with regard to the title and possession of the property which is sought to be transferred as per Ext.P7 document, the petitioner was intimated the said doubt as per Ext. P8 communication and he was asked to produce the possession certificate obtained from the competent authorities.
4. I have heard Sri.K.P. Balasubramanyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the Ist respondent.
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
