Point of law : When the pleadings are raised, the law is very clear, it has to be either rebutted specifically else would amount to deemed admission or not replied to.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. By means of this present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (F and R), Ballia in purported exercise of power under section 73 of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short 'Registration Act').

3. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner is a recorded tenure holder of the land which is subject-matter of sale-deed which has been directed to be registered under the order impugned. The petitioner moved some application before the Sub-Registrar alleging that though he had executed registered agreement for sale on 18.7.2003 but he never intended to execute any sale-deed in respect of his 1/4th share in the property. However, the respondents being persons with criminal antecedents, got him signed sale-deed showing payment of consideration of Rs. 10,000/- dated 13.1.2005 and he did so under coersion. The sale-deed was presented by the contesting respondent No. 4 before the Sub-Registrar, Ballia for registration of the execution of sale-deed, however, the Sub-Registrar, Ballia vide order dated 18.1.2005 refused to register the sale-deed. It is admitted to the parties that the Vendor of the sale-deed namely the petitioner was neither present before the Sub-Registrar at the time of presentation of sale-deed nor, any notice was issued to him in respect thereof. The respondent No. 4 having come to know about the order dated 18.1.2005 as it was served on 29.1.2005 immediately preferred an appeal before the Registrar of the District under section 73 of the Registration Act on 19.2.2005. The petitioner was put to notice by the Registrar and he filed his objection to the appeal taking the plea that the appeal was time barred and further that there was no occasion to execute sale-deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/- when the market value of the land was more than Rs. 15 lacs, so according to him it was a sale-deed under coercion and in order to establish the case of coercion, he further pleaded in his objection that the 4th respondent was a person with criminal antecedents and therefore, they got the document of sale-deed signed by the petitioner per force. The Registrar considered the objection of the petitioner and held that the appeal was well within limitation filed from the date of knowledge because it had nowhere notice by the Sub-Registrar in his order refusing registration that the 4th respondent was present at the time of passing of the order or that he had signed the order sheet.

4. On the question of sale-deed being void for insufficient consideration, the Registrar expressed view that there was no document brought in evidence before him to establish that the market value of the land as claimed by the petitioner was the correct valuation. The Registrar further proceeded to hold that since the Vendor had himself admitted in para 6 that he had signed the document of sale, no further inquiry was needed as to whether the document of sale was duly signed by the Vendor or not and on the question whether such document of sale was got signed under coercion or by exercising muscle power upon the Vendee, cannot be gone into in appeal under the Registration Act and thus, the Registrar of the District directed for registration of the sale-deed by setting aside the order of Sub-Registrar.

5. Assailing the above order before this Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued two points: one that the limitation would run from the date of order and since the order was passed on 18.1.2005, the limitation of 30 days would naturally expire on 16.2.2005 and in view of the settled legal position that the Registrar is not a Court, the Limitation Act would not apply and therefore, the Registrar fell in serious error of law in entertaining the appeal holding it to be competent and deciding it