Back
2009 (II) OLR (SC) — 576
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.
Rajni Tandon... Appellant
Versus
Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar & Anr.... Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2004
Decided on 29th July, 2009.
The object of registration is designed to guard against fraud by obtaining a contemporaneous publication and an unimpeachable record of each document. The instant case is one where no allegation of fraud has been raised. In view thereof the duty cast on the Registering Officer under Section 32 of the Act was only to satisfy himself that the document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been signed. The Registrar upon being so satisfied and upon being presented with a document to be registered had to proceed with the registration of the same.
Where a deed is executed by an agent for a principal and the same agent signs, appears and presents the deed or admits execution before the Registering Officer, that is not a case of presentation under Section 32 (c) of the Act. As mentioned earlier the provisions of Section 33 will come into play only in cases where presentation is in terms of Section 32 (c) of the Act. In other words, only in cases where the person(s) signing the document cannot present the document before the registering officer and gives a power of attorney to another to present the document that the provisions of Section 33 get attracted. It is only in such a case, that the said power of attorney has to be necessarily executed and authenticated in the manner provided under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Act. (Paras - 18 to 30)
2. REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - Sec. 32 - "Person executing" - It refers to the person who actually signs or marks the document in token of execution, whether for himself or on behalf of some other person. (Para - 24)
JUDGMENT
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. — 1. The present Civil Appeal raises questions relating to interpretation of Section 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. The dispute pertains to a Flat situated on the ground floor of a building commonly known as “Nilachal” at Tollygunge, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The appellant by virtue of a Registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990 purchased the said premises from one Sri Nandlal Tantia (also referred to as Shri N. L. Tantia), Karta of M/s R. L. Tantia & Sons (HUF). The said Deed of Conveyance was executed by the constituted attorney of Shri N. L. Tantia, Shri Indra Kumar Halani, on the basis of a Power of Attorney). It is pertinent of mention herein that the said premises was purchased by Shri Nandlal Tantia in his capacity as a Karta of M/s R. L. Tantia and sons (HUF) in August 1978. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar (Predecessor in interest of Respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed to stay free of charge in the said premises from October, 1978 as a personal gesture of Shri Nandlal Tantia as a licensee only. Sri N. L. Tantia, Karta of M/s R. L. Tantia & Sons intimated the Society about their ownership in the said premises and asked them to send all future correspondence and maintenance bills in their name. They also informed the society that Mrs. Abha Rani Ghosh Dastidar was temporarily staying in the said premises as a licensee.
3. It is the case of the Appellant that all records / documents, conveyance deed, corporation records, maintenance bills of the “Nilachal Housing Society” in which the said premises was located, resolution of the “Nilachal Housing Society” under the West Bengal Apartment Owners Act giving the detailed list of flat owners, show N. L. Tantia / R. L. Tantia and Sons as the owner of the said premises.
4. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar served a notice in the year 1982 on the Society as to why maintenance bills etc. were not made out in her name.
Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar thereafter filed Civil Suit No. 322 of 1982 against the Society asking them to include her name as the owner and send all correspondence, maintenance bills etc to her. The President and Secretary of the Housing Society filed a reply in this Suit stating that Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh, Dastidar could not be recognized as a owner in absence of any document to prove her ownership. She was asked to submit better documents proving her ownership.
5. M/s. R. L. Tantia & Sons (HUF) served a notice dated 20.04.1983 to Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar revoking the licence granted and asking for vacant possession of the flat. When Smt. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar refused to vacate the flat, Mr. Nandalal Tantia filed Suit No. 174 of 1983 for eviction against her.
6. The Appellant herein after coming to know that a Suit for Eviction filed by his Predecessor in interest was pending moved an Application for impleadment as a party. This application for impleadment filed by the Appellant was rejected. The Title Suit No. 174 of 1983 filed by the erstwhile owner Mr. Nandlal Tantia was dismissed on 29.01.1991 for default due to the fact that Sri. N. L. Tantia having sold the property to the Appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter.
7. The Appellant after being refused to be made a party in Suit for Eviction filed a fresh Suit in May 1990 for Eviction, Possession and Damages for unauthorized occupation of the property against the Respondents. This Suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 24 of 1991.
8. Respondent No. 2 alone contested the Suit. The said defendant contended that Nandlal Tantia was not the owner of the Suit property and he had no right title and interest therein and as such the Appellant did not acquire any right, title and interest in the Suit premises by virtue of her purchase of the same by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990. The said Respondent further made out a case for acquisition of title by adverse possession upon c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
