Back
1962 Supreme(P&H) 96
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Dulat and P.C.Pandit JJ.
Ram Singh Sant Ram
Versus
Jasmer Singh Hardit Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 257 of 1959,
Decided On : MAY 8, 1962
A suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 can only be filed when the Registrar refuses to register a document under Section 72 or 76 of the Act. An application under Section 36 of the Act is not a refusal to register.
Headnote:
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 77 - SUIT FOR COMPULSORY REGISTRATION - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - REFUSAL TO REGISTER UNDER SECTION 72 OR 76 - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 36 NOT A REFUSAL TO REGISTER - SUIT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Sant Ram purchased land from Ajaib Singh on 11-2-1943. The sale deed was presented for registration after office hours and the parties were asked to come the next day. They failed to appear, and the document could not be registered. Ajaib Singh exchanged part of the land with Baldev Singh on 18-3-1943 and sold the remaining land to Jasmer Singh on 11-10-1943. Sant Ram filed an application under Section 36 of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act) to summon the sale deed from the Registrar (Controller) for registration. The Sub-Registrar returned the application and directed that it be re-presented along with the sale deed. Sant Ram treated this as a refusal to register and filed an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Act, which was dismissed as barred by time. Sant Ram filed a suit for specific performance of the sale deed against Ajaib Singh, Baldev Singh, and Jasmer Singh. The suit was compromised between Ajaib Singh and Ram Singh, Sant Ram's son and legal representative. The suit was withdrawn against Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh with liberty to file a fresh suit. Sant Ram filed another suit under Section 77 of the Act for a decree directing the registration of the sale deed. A consent decree was passed in favor of Sant Ram, and the sale deed was registered on 11-2-1944. Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh filed a suit against Sant Ram and Ajaib Singh for a declaration that the decree obtained by Sant Ram under Section 77 of the Act was void and the registration was ineffective against their rights. The suit was decreed by the trial court but dismissed by the appellate court and upheld by the High Court. Ram Singh filed two suits against Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh for possession of the land in dispute based on the sale deed dated 11-2-1943. The suits were stayed pending the appeal filed by Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suit filed by Sant Ram under Section 77 of the Act was not maintainable because the requirements of Section 77 were not satisfied. The application under Section 36 of the Act was not a refusal to register under Section 72 or 76 of the Act, and therefore, a suit under Section 77 was not maintainable. The sale deed was presented for registration after more than 8 months of its execution and could not be registered under any circumstances. The decree obtained by Sant Ram and the registration of the sale deed in pursuance thereof were not valid in law. The defendants were not bound by the decree and the registration, and they could challenge the same in the present suit. The principle of res judicata did not apply because the decree and registration were not valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit filed by Sant Ram under Section 77 of the Act was maintainable? 2. Whether the defendants were bound by the decree obtained by Sant Ram and the registration of the sale deed in pursuance thereof? 3. Whether the principle of res judicata applied to bar the defendants from challenging the decree and registration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit under Section 77 of the Act can only be filed when the Registrar refuses to register a document under Section 72 or 76 of the Act. An application under Section 36 of the Act is not a refusal to register. 2. A sale deed presented for registration after more than 8 months of its execution cannot be registered under any circumstances. 3. A decree obtained and registration effected in violation of the provisions of the Act are not valid and can be challenged by persons whose rights are affected.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
P.C.Pandit, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of two connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 257 and 258 of 1959.
2. On 11-2-1943 Ajaib Singh sold agricultural land measuring 7 bighas and 18 biswas to Sant Ram, father of Ram Singh appellant, for Rs. 4,000/-. A regular sale-deed was executed on the same day, but it appears that the parties appeared before the Sub-Registrar for the registration of this document after office hours. They were, consequently, asked to come on the following day. It is common ground that they did not appear on the next day and the document, therefore, could not be registered, on 18-3-1943 Ajaib Singh exchanged 3 bighas and 5 biswas out of this very land with Baldev Singh, respondent No. 1 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 258 of 1959, and the deed was registered on 27-3-1943.
On 11-10-1943 Ajaib Singh sold the remaining land also by a registered deed to Jasmer Singh, respondent No. 1 in Letters Patent Appeal. No. 267 of 1959. On 4-5-1948 Sant Ram filed an application under Section 36 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called the Act), to the Sub-Registration to the effect that the sale-deed dated 11-2-1943 in his favour which Ajaib Singh had in the meantime presented to the Registrar (Controller) for the refund of the stamp duty, be sent for from that office and Ajaib Singh be also summoned and the said deed be registered. This application was returned by the Sub-Registrar on that very day with the direction that it should be re-presented along with the sale-deed. On that very day, treating this order of the Sub-Registrar as one of refusal to register the document, Sant Ram filed in appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Act. This appeal was dismissed by the Registrar as barred by time on 25-11-1943.
In the meantime, on 8-5-1943 Sant Ram filed a suit against Ajaib Singh for possession of the land in dispute by specific performance of the sale-deed. Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh were duly impleaded as defendants in that suit. In February 1954 Sant Ram died and his son, Ram Singh, the present appellant, was brought on the record as his legal representative. On 7-3-1944 the suit was compromised between Ajaib Singh and Ram Singh. As a result, it was decreed against Ajaib Singh. The suit was, however, withdrawn against Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh with liberty, to file a fresh suit against them. Meanwhile, on 23-12-1943 Sant Ram brought another suit against Ajaib Singh under Section 77 of the Act for a decree, directing the sale-deed dated 11-2-1943 to be registered. On 4-1-1944 a consent decree was passed in favour of Sant Ram and on 11-2-1944 this sale-deed was registered in pursuance of the same.
On 10-1-1944 Baldev Singh & Jasmer Singh instituted a suit against Sant Ram and Ajaib Singh for a declaration that the decree obtained by Sant Ram against Ajaib Singh under Section 77 of the Act was void and the registration that took place in pursuance thereof was ineffective against their rights. This suit was decreed by the trial Court, but on appeal it was dismissed, by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, on 31-8-1948. This decree was affirmed by J. L. Kapur J. on second appeal by this Court on 5-8-1951.
The two suits, out of which the present Letters Patent Appeals have arisen, were brought In August 1945 by Ram Singh against Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh for possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the sale-deed dated 11-2-1943 (registered on 11-2-1944). However, the proceedings in these suits were stayed on account of the pendency of the appeal filed by Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh in this Court as stated above.
3. These suits were resisted by the defendants on a number of grounds, which led to the framing of the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is the valid owner of the land in suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff was granted leave to withdraw the previous suit with permission to file a fresh suit?
3. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the suit in the present
