Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.L.Chopra, J.
Ram Singh Sant Ram
Versus
Jasmer Singh Hardit Singh
Second Appeal No. 282 of 1954,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 11, 1959
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 77 - SUIT FOR COMPULSORY REGISTRATION - REQUIREMENTS - JURISDICTION OF COURT - VALIDITY OF REGISTRATION - EFFECT ON THIRD PARTIES.
Fact of the Case:
Ajaib Singh sold a piece of land to Sant Ram on 11th February 1943. The sale deed was presented for registration on the following day but was not registered as the parties failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar. Subsequently, Ajaib Singh exchanged a portion of the land with Baldev Singh and sold the remaining land to Jasmer Singh. Sant Ram filed an application under Section 36 of the Registration Act to summon the sale deed from the Registrar's office, but the Sub-Registrar returned the application. Sant Ram filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Registrar. Sant Ram then filed a suit under Section 77 of the Act for a decree directing the registration of the sale deed. The Court passed a consent decree in favor of Sant Ram, and the sale deed was registered on 11th February 1944. Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh filed a suit for a declaration that the decree obtained under Section 77 of the Act was void and the registration was ineffective. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but allowed by the District Judge. Sant Ram's son, Ram Singh, filed the present suit for possession of the land on the basis of the sale deed. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the District Judge dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act was not maintainable as the requirements of the section were not satisfied. The Sub-Registrar had not refused to register the document, and therefore, there was no order of refusal from which an appeal could be filed under Section 72. The Registrar had also not refused to register the document or to direct its registration by the Sub-Registrar under Section 76. The decree obtained in suit No. 2 and the registration of the sale deed in pursuance of that decree were not valid and binding on the defendants.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act was maintainable? 2. Whether the decree obtained in suit No. 2 and the registration of the sale deed in pursuance of that decree were valid and binding on the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act can only be instituted if there has been a refusal by the Registrar to register the document under Section 72 or Section 76. 2. In the present case, there was no order of the Sub-Registrar refusing to admit the document for registration and consequently there was no proper appeal before the Registrar under Section 72. There was also no order of the Registrar, nor could there be any, refusing to register the document or to direct its registration by the Sub-Registrar, as provided by Section 76.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
G.L.Chopra, J.
1. The case giving rise to these two regular second appeals Nos. 282 and 283 of 1954 has had a chequered history. A small piece of agricultural land measuring about 7 Bighas and 18 Biswas, situate in village Raipur, District Ludhiana has been the bone of contention and subject-matter of several suits and other proceedings between the parties for the last so many years. On 11th February, 1943, Ajaib Singh, the original owner of the land, sold it to Sant Ram, father of Ram Singh appellant, for a consideration of Rs. 4000/- and executed a deed in his favour. The same day the parties to the document "appeared before the Sub-Registrar to get it registered. Since it was after the time fixed for the purpose, the Sub-Registrar asked the parties to come on the following day. Thereafter, the parties never appeared and the document was not registered.
2. On the 18th March, 1943, Ajaib Singh exchanged 3 Bighas 5 Biswas out of that land with Baldev Singh (respondent in appeal No. 283). The exchange-deed was duly registered On 27th March, 1943. The remaining land was sold by Ajaib Singh to Jasmer Singh (respondent in appeal No. 282) by a registered deed dated llth October, 1943.
3. On 4th May, 1943, Sant Ram submitted an application to the Sub-Registrar purporting to be one under Section 36 of the Registration Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) praying that the sale-deed in his favour, which Ajaib Singh had in the meantime presented to the Registrar (Collector) for refund of the stamp duty, be sent for from that office and Unit Ajaib Singh be also summoned and the deed registered. The same day, the Sub-Registrar returned the application with the order that it should be represented along with the document. On the very day Sant Ram filed an appeal against this order, treating it as one refusing to register the document, under Section 72 of the Act. The Registrar dismissed the appeal on 25th November, 1943.
3a. On 8th May, 1943, Sant Ram had already instituted a suit against Ajaib Singh for possession of the land by specific performance of the sale deed in his favour. On an application presented by Baldev Singh and Jasmer Singh respondents they were impleaded as defendants to the suit. The suit ended in a compromise between Sant Ram and Aiaib Singh, but as against the respondents it was withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh suit. This happened on 7th March, 1944. For facility of reference this would be called as suit No. 1.
4. On 23rd December, 1943, Sant Ram had brought yet another suit against Ajaib Singh under Section 77 of the Act for a decree directing the document to be registered. On 4th January, 1944, the Court passed a consent decree in favour of Sant Ram directing that the sale-deed be presented for registration within 30 days of the decree. In pursuance of this decree the sale-deed was registered on 11th February, 1944. This shall hereinafter be referred to as suit No. 2.
5. Within a week of the above decision viz. on 10th January, 1944, Jasmer Singh and Baldev Singh respondents instituted a suit for a declaration that the decree obtained under Section 77 of the Act was void and the registration which took place in pursuance of that decree would be ineffective so far as their rights were concerned. This suit, to which a bit more detailed reference as suit No. 3 shall presently be made, was decreed by the trial Court, but it was dismissed in appeal by the Addl. District Judge. Further appeal of the respondents was dismissed by this Court, vide its order dated 6th August, 1951.
6. Now, Sant: Ram having died, his son Ram Singh instituted the present suit, one against Jasmer Singh and the other against Baldev Singh on 24th August, 1944, for possession of the land on the basis of the sale-deed in his favour dated 11th February; 1943, and registered on llth February, 1944. As suit No. 3 was then pending in the High Court proceedings in these two suits were stayed. On their revival, the trial proceeded
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
