The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance and interpretation of Sections 72, 76, and 77 of the Registration Act in the context of refusal to register a document under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act.

P.K. Misra, J.

The legal representatives of the original defendant are the appellants against the reversing decision.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :-

Plaintiff is the son of the defendant. A sale deed was executed by the defendant on 2.11.1978 in respect of an immovable property. In such document, it has been recited that consideration money of Rs.15,500/- had been paid to the vendor. Subsequently, the document was presented for registration on 2.11.1978. The defendant admitted the execution of the document. However, since permission contemplated under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act had not been obtained, the registering authority passed an order on 10.12.1979 refusing to register the document. An appeal filed under section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 17.4.1980. Application for obtaining copy of the order was filed on 13.5.1980 and the order of the appellate authority was made available on 30.5.1980. O.S.No.295 of 1980 was filed before the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, on 16.6.1980, that is to say, the re-opening day after the summer vacation. In the said suit, the following reliefs had been claimed :-

“ (i) direct the defendant to produce the necessary permission from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, to register the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 2.11.1978;

(ii) directing the Registrar of Pondicherry to register the sale deed dt.2.11.1978 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, as if it was presented for registration on 2.11.1978;

(iii) in default the Court may obtain necessary permission on behalf of the defendant for the Registration of the document dt. 211.1978;

(iv) for delivery of possession of the said property to the plaintiff. ...”

The averment in the plaint was to the effect that the defendant, after having executed the sale deed, did not apply in the proper form for permission under Section 26(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, and therefore, the document could not be registered because of the absence of such permission. It was stated in the plaint that cause of action of the plaint arose on 2.11.1978, when the defendant received the amount and executed sale deed, and on 17.4.1980, when the Registrar dismissed the appeal. The suit was valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.15,500/- and court fee of Rs.1,163/- was paid under section 42(a) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The plaintiff had framed the suit as if it was a suit for specific performance of a contract. The Registrar was not impleaded as a defendant.

In the written statement filed by the defendant, the execution of the sale deed on 2.11.1978 was admitted. It was contended therein that the sale price was fixed at Rs.15,500/-, out of which Rs.5,500/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and balance Rs.10,000/- was to be paid on or before the date of signing the application to be filed before the Authorised Officer for obtaining the necessary permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. However, the plaintiff subsequently evaded and refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- and the defendant refused to sign the application. The plaintiff had issued lawyer’s notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to sign the application for obtaining permission. The defendant gave a reply indicating that on payment of the balance amount, the defendant was willing to sign the application for obtaining the permission. It was specifically stated in the written statement that the defendant is ready to co-operate with the plaintiff in obtaining the permission, provided the plaintiff pays the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The trial court framed the following issues :-

“1. Whether the defendant has not received a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the date of signing of the application