Back
1953 Supreme(Raj) 34
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.N. Wanchoo, Inder Nath Modi
Jeewan Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 128 of 1952
Decided On : 02/20/1953
Appearance :
Chandmal, for the Appellant
Kansingh, Asst. Govt. Advocate, for the Respondents
The Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a document based on laws other than the Registration Act and supplemental laws, and an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act is available in such cases.
Headnote:
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTIONS 34, 35, 72, 74(B) - REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED - REFUSAL BY SUB-REGISTRAR - APPEAL TO REGISTRAR - AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a Jat, purchased a plot of land from a barber, Girdhari, and presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the deed, citing Notification No. 108 of 1943 and Notification No. 66 of 1945, which restricted the sale of land without permission from revenue authorities. The applicant challenged the validity of these notifications and sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sub-Registrar erred in refusing to register the sale deed based on the notifications, as it was not his duty to consider laws outside the Registration Act and supplemental laws. The court further held that the applicant had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, which provided an equally beneficial, convenient, and effective remedy.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing to register the sale deed based on the notifications. 2. Whether the applicant had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Sub-Registrar's duty is limited to ensuring that the document is presented in the prescribed manner, executed by the appropriate persons, and that the identity of the parties is verified. He cannot refuse registration based on laws other than the Registration Act and supplemental laws. 2. Section 72 of the Registration Act provides an appeal to the Registrar against the Sub-Registrar's order, and the Registrar has the power to reverse or alter such order. This remedy was equally beneficial, convenient, and effective for the applicant to obtain the desired relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, which he failed to utilize.
2. The applicant’s case is that he purchased a plot of land measuring 18 Biswas in Chak Beed-wala for a sum of Rs. 100/-and got a sale-deed executed in his favour on 3-5-1952. The applicant is a Jat, while the vendor Girdhari is a barber. The applicant presented for registration the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar of Hanumangarh on that very day. The Sub-Registrar, however, refused to register the deed, and his reason for the refusal was that the seller and the purchaser did not belong to the same community or group of castes. He relied on Notification No. 108 dated 11-10-1943, issued by the Government of Bikaner, and published in the Bikaner Rajpatra, dated 30-10-1943, at page 430, read with Notification No. 66 of 29-9-1945, published in Bikaner Rajpatra of 6-10-1945. These notifications put certain restrictions on the sale of land without the permission of the revenue authorities. The applicant says that the restrictions put in these notifications are void in view of Articles 14, 15 and 19 (f) of the Constitution. He, therefore, prays that rule 3 of Notification No. 108 read with Notification No. 66 be declared null and void, and the Sub-Registrar be ordered to register the sale-deed. 2a. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.
3. It is not necessary for purposes of this case to go into the question whether notification No. 108 read with notification No. 66 is now abrogated as it is against the provisions in Part III of the Constitution for the present application can be disposed of on the preliminary objection that has been raised on behalf of the State, namely that there was an equally beneficial convenient and effective remedy available to the applicant, and he has not availed himself of the same. This remedy, it is said, was by way of an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72, Registration Act.
4. Theorder of the Sub-Registrar, dated 3-5-1952 proceeds on the ground that notification No. 108 read with notification No. 66 mentioned above forbids sale of such land by a barber to ajat, and therefore the sale-deed could not be registered. We are of opinion that it was no part of the duty of the Sub-Registrar to go outside the powers conferred on him under Ss. 34 and 35, Registration Act and such provisions of other laws which have been made definitely supplemental to the Registration Act. Sections 34 and 35. Registration Act provide what a registering officer has to see before registering a document. Briefly speaking, he has to see that the document is presented in the maimer prescribed by the Registration Act and by a person authorised to present it and before an officer authorised to register it. Before registering a document, the registering officer has to enquire whether or not the document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. He has also to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document. In the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, he has further to satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. Thereafter, he cannot refuse to register the document except on the grounds mentioned in Section 35(3), Registration Act, or under the provisions of any other law which has been definitely made supplemental to the Registration Act. It is not the business of the registering officer to see whether a particular document is against any other law in force for the time being if the conditions prescribed for registration under Sections 34 and 35, Registration Act or any supplemental law are satisfied. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Sub-Registrar in this case was wrong in refusing registration of this document on the ground that it contravened certai
