Back
2003 Supreme(Raj) 158
Rajasthan High Court
Honble RAJESH BALIA, J.
Gafur Khan & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5480 of 1994
Decided On : February 25, 2003
A.L. Chopra, for Petitioners G.M. Khan, for Respondents
Headnote:Registration Act, 1908, Sec. 34, 35, 58-60 & 71 and Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955, Rule 39 to 41 – Power of the Registering Authority to hold enquiry and to refuse to register the documents presented before him – Held – It has no jurisdiction to make enquiry into the genuineness of documents, transaction or statement – Power u/Sec.71 to hold enquiry is bridled – Order of refusal must be reasoned – Enquiry has been specifically prohibited u/Rules 39 and 40 of the Rules of 1955 – The impugned order being in breach of mandate of the provisions of the Act and Rules cannot be sustained – The authority is under obligation to register the same except if he is able to point out any grounds mentioned in Sec.35(3) or under any other provisions of the Act. (Paras 11,63,65,72 & 77)
Section 35(3) is another provision pointing out the circumstances in which the Registering Officer is entitled to refuse to register the document. Sub-section (2) of Section 71 envisages that no Registering Officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered. The power u/Sec. 71 vesting with the Sub-Registrar to refuse to register the document is not uncanalised or unbridled to hold enquiry into every aspect of the matter between the parties or the dispute as to the genuineness of transaction or the circumstance in which the document was executed, de hors the statute. The Registering Officer including Sub-Registrar is to act within the domain of statute to fulfil the object of the statute and not to travel beyond it. (Para 63)
(2). The facts giving rise to present writ petition are that the sale deed purported to be executed by Smt. Shahjadi Khatu W/o Salim Khan in favour of the petitioners on 12.05.1993 and on that very day it was produced before the Sub-Registrar, Phalodi.
(3). The Sub-Registrar made the following endorsement on the presentation disclosing that an enquiry required to be made u/Sec. 34, was made by him about the due execution of document :
^^fnukad 12-5-93 oDr 8-40 ih-,e- fdLe cSpku miiath;d Qyksnh ds le{k Jhefr kgtknh [krq ifRu Jh lhye [kka tkfr eqlyeku vk;q 50 o"kZ O;olk; ?kjsyw fuoklh Hkb;ksa dh <k.kh ¼dqkykok½ esa Qyksnh esa mifLFkfr gksdj izLrqr fd;k gSA
miiath;d Qyksnh
izLrqr drkZ Jhefr lhye [kka tkfr eqlyeku vk;q 50 o"kZ fuoklh Hkb;ksa dh <k.kh ¼dqkykok½ esa Qyksnh dks ;g nLrkost cspku i<+dj lquk;k x;kA bl nLrkost dks lqu ,oa le>dj fu"ikfnr djuk Lohdkj fd;k o :i;s 67]600@& djuk Lohdkj fd;kA fu"iknu drkZ dks Jh eksgu ykyk lkjy odhy Qyksnh igpkurk gSA kuk[r miiath;d nLr[kr odhy eksgu yky lkjy QyksnhA
¼vaxwBk½
kgtknh[kkrq
¼QksVks½
(4). After the aforesaid endorsement was made, vide order dated 14.06.1993 the Sub-Registrar, Phalodi, refused to register the document for the reason that he does not consider it in the interest of justice to register the said document. The entire order reads as under :
^^vknsk**
nLrkost o rkjh[k 12-5-93 dks isk gqvk vkSj mlh jkst mlds }kjk fu"iknu fd;s tkus ckcr dk;Zokgh dh x;hA /kkjk 60 iath- vf/kfu;e ds rgr dk;Zokgh djus ls iwoZ fu"ikfnr drkZ dh mez ,oa fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, bl fo"k; ds lEcU/k esa ekSds ij tkap fd;k tkuk eSus vf/kd mfpr le>k vkSj blh dkj.k geskk dh Hkkafr nQk 60 dh lhy yxkdj mlesa [kkukiwfrZ gks tkus ds ckotwn eSus mldh Lohd`fr vFkok vknsk ekSdk tkap ds ckotwn eSus mldh Lohd`fr vFkok vknsk ekSdk tkap ds ckn djuk mfpr le>kA blfy;s eSus mlh jkst iath;u gsrq isk fd;s x;s nLrkost ds lkFk izkFkZuk i= ij ekSds dk uksV yxk fn;k FkkA
vkSj mlds vuqlkj eSa rkjh[k 12-6-93 dks ekSds ij tkdj tkap dh fu"iknudrkZ ds c;ku fy;s vkSj mifLFkr ekSrfcjku O;fDr;ksa ds fyf[kr gS bl ckcr izfrosnu isk fd;k tks jsdkMZ ij gSA bl tkap ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl nLrkost ¼fu"iknudrkZ½ ¼kgtknh cuke lqyrku [kka eqlyeku oxSjk½ dks iathdj.k djuk U;k;fgr esa mfpr ugha ekurk vr% vLohdkj djrk gwaA
¼miiath;d] QykSnh½
tks/kiqjA
(5). An appeal was filed against the aforesaid two orders of Sub- Registrar before the Registrar, Jodhpur, on 17.7.93 and preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondent Shahajadi Khatu that appeal is barred by time.
(6). The Registrar, Jodhpur, while dismissing the appeal on merit held the appeal within limitation by referring to chronology of events, which is relevant for the present purposes also, held that the appellants before the Registrar, who are petitioners before this Court, had no knowledge about the order dated 14.6.93 until 2.07.1993.
(7). The chronology, which followed the presentation of document before the Sub-Registrar for registration and endorsement on the document as aforesaid is that on 16.5.93. Smt. Shahajadi Khatu lodged an FIR alleging that Salim Khan has got the sale deed executed by her by misrepresenting that she has to execute certain documents for securing old age pension. Thus, Salim Khan has procured, by misrepresenting, her signature/thumb impression on the sale deed transferring her land, which she never intended to sell. She also alleged in the FIR that she has not received any consideration and has not parted with the possession of the land in question.
(8). The petitioner had filed an application seeking release on bail on 26.8.93 only. Prior to that on 2.7.93 when he was informed about the order of refusal to register the document, he applied for the copy thereof on that very day and after obtaining the copy, has filed the appeal against said order on 17.3.93 before the Registrar.
(9). These orders are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
(10). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
