Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Rakesh Singh and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Raman Kumar and Others – Respondents
OWP No. 965 of 2017 & MP Nos. 1, 2, 3 of 2017
Decided On : 04-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amarvir Manhas.
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhinav Sharma.
The registering officer's powers are limited and do not extend to the validity of the documents presented for registration. The partly exercised authority of the agent and the stay of the deed of cancellation by the Civil Court justified the registration of the sale deed.
Headnote:
Registration Act - Power of Attorney - Sections 32, 33, 34, 35, and Rule 39 - The court discussed the nature and extent of powers of the registering officer under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration Act, 1977, and the procedure for admission and denial of execution of documents. It emphasized that the registering officer's powers are limited and do not extend to the validity of the documents presented for registration. The court upheld the order allowing the registration of a sale deed presented by an agent, despite the revocation of the power of attorney, as the agent had partly exercised his authority and the deed of cancellation was stayed by the Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners appointed respondent No. 1 as their lawful attorney for their land. After revoking the power of attorney, the respondent No. 1 presented a sale deed for registration, which was declined by the registering authority. The petitioners challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registering officer's powers are limited and do not extend to the validity of the documents presented for registration. It upheld the order allowing the registration of the sale deed presented by the agent, as the deed of cancellation was stayed by the Civil Court and the agent had partly exercised his authority.
Issues: The nature and extent of powers of the registering officer under the Registration Act, the validity of the documents presented for registration, and the authority of the agent to present the sale deed for registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The registering officer's powers are limited and do not extend to the validity of the documents presented for registration. The agent's partly exercised authority and the stay of the deed of cancellation by the Civil Court justified the registration of the sale deed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order allowing the registration of the sale deed presented by the agent, as it found no fault with the decision of the registering officer.
MP No. 3/2017:
1. In view of the averments made in the application, it is allowed and the documents attached with the application are placed on record.
2. MP is disposed of accordingly.
OWP No. 965/2017:
3. The petitioners are aggrieved of the Order dated 09.06.2017 passed by the Registrar (Principal District Judge) Samba in File No. 12/appeal titled Raman Kumar vs. Rakesh Singh and Others, whereby the Registrar, Samba has set aside the order of Sub-Registrar (Sub-Judge), Samba dated 23rd May, 2017 and has directed to register the document of Sale Deed presented before him for registration under Rules.
4. The short grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that they had appointed respondent No. 1 as their lawful attorney in respect of their land measuring 53 kanals and 04 marlas situated at village Meen Charkan Tehsil Bari Brahamana District Samba through registered Deed of Attorney dated 16th July, 2016. The petitioners state that respondent No. 1 started acting in breach of trust reposed in him by the petitioners and, therefore, they had no other option but to revoke the power and, accordingly, the power of attorney granted to respondent No. 1 was cancelled by a Deed of Cancellation of power of attorney registered before the Sub-Registrar (3rd Additional Munsiff), Jammu on 18.10.2016. The petitioners further claim that the aforesaid decision of cancellation of power of attorney was conveyed to respondent No. 1 and he was advised not to act upon the power of attorney given to him as the same stood cancelled by the execution of deed of cancellation. It is averred that respondent No. 1, who was acting prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners, approached the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Samba by way of a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the cancellation of power of attorney and the learned Principal District Judge, Samba vide its ex-parte order dated 01.12.2016, stayed the operation of deed of cancellation of power of attorney dated 18.10.2016. The petitioners further submit that the aforesaid ex-parte interim order was not served upon them and in the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 started acting upon the power of attorney which had since been cancelled and started negotiations with the J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Jammu for transferring the land. The respondent No. 1 thus executed Sale Deeds and presented the same for registration before respondent No. 3. The petitioners have further averred that when they came to know about the attempt of respondent No. 1 to transfer their land in favour of the J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Jammu and that the Sale Deeds on their behalf have been executed and are being presented for registration before the respondent No. 3, the petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 3 and apprised him of the intervening developments. The respondent No. 3, taking cognizance of the intervening developments, i.e. cancellation of power of attorney and the matter being subjudice before the Principal District Judge, Samba with regard to the aforesaid cancellation, declined to register the Sale Deeds presented by respondent No. 1 in respect of the petitioners’ land on 23rd May, 2017.
5. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 approached the Registrar (Principal District Judge), Samba by way of an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1977. The appeal was contested by the petitioners but ultimately, the respondent No. 2 vide order impugned, accepted the appeal of the respondent No. 1, set aside the order of respondent No. 3 dated 23rd May, 2017 and directed the registration of document of Sale Deed presented before him for registration under Rules.
6. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order of learned Registrar, Samba (supra) and have challenged the same on the ground that once the power of attorney given to the respondent No. 1 had been cancelled and the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of respondent N
