IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Parmod Kumar & Anr. …Appellants.
Versus.
Dhan Devi & Ors. …Respondents.
RSA No. 6 of 2001
Decided on : February 23, 2011
Attesting Witness - Sale Deed - The court dismissed the appeal as the sale deed was not proved in accordance with law due to the absence of attesting witnesses or the scribe. The Sub Registrar who registered the sale deed cannot be treated as one of the attesting witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The sale deed in question was not proved in accordance with law as no attesting witness or scribe was examined by the parties. The plaintiff alleged fraud in the execution of the deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Sub Registrar who registered the sale deed can be treated as one of the attesting witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the essential conditions of a valid attestation under Section 3 of T. P. Act, emphasizing the requirement of two or more witnesses seeing the executant sign the instrument or receiving a personal acknowledgement of the signature.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the sale deed was not proved in accordance with law due to the absence of attesting witnesses or the scribe.
Sanjay Karol, J .
The present appeal was admitted on the following
substantial question of law:-
“3. Whether the Sub Registrar who registered the sale deed can be treated as one of the attesting witness that he registered the document after satisfying about the execution of the document?”
2. The Court below has come to the conclusion that the sale deed in question (Ext.DW-2/A) was not proved in accordance with law as no attesting witness or scribe to the same was examined by the parties basing its claim thereupon. Plaintiff, an illiterate lady, hailing from a village, assailed the alleged sale deed on the ground that her close relative, by advantage of her economic and social condition got the same executed by exercising fraud.
3. It is not in dispute that except for the Registrar, who registered the document in question, no attesting witness or the scribe was examined by the parties. Substantial question of law, as framed in the present appeal, in fact already stands settled by the Apex Court in M. L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib vs. H. Venkata Sastri and Sons AIR 1969 SC 1147, wherein it has been held as under:-
“The word “attested”, occurs in Sec. 3, T. P. Act, as part of the definition itself. To attest is to bear witness to a fact. The essential conditions of a valid attestation under Section 3 of T. P. Act are: (I) two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign the instrument or have received from him a personal acknowledgement of his signature; (2) with a view to attest or to bear witness to this fact each of them has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant. It is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi, that is, for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgement of his signature. If a person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose, e.g. to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness.”
4. Consequently, in my considered view, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.