Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. K. Tare, J.
SARASWATIBAI, HIMMATSINGH - Appellant
Versus
IDRAKUDDIN - Respondents
Second Appeal 63 Of 1960
Decided On : 12/13/1961
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 77 - REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED - TAMPERED DOCUMENT - SECONDARY EVIDENCE - CIVIL COURT'S POWER - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT OF SALE - CONDITIONAL DECREE FOR REGISTRATION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent executed a sale deed in favor of the appellant for certain land. The appellant leased back the fields to the respondent. The respondent took a loan from one Rameshwar and put his signature in the Ticket Bahi of Rameshwar. The appellant executed a return sale deed for the same property for a higher consideration. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed due to the absence of the executant. The respondent filed a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act for getting the summary order set aside and for registration of the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The Courts below held that the appellant had executed the sale deed in question. Although a part of the original sale deed was missing, the Courts held that the Court could order registration of the deed, as there was satisfactory evidence on record that the defendant had executed the sale deed and a portion of the original deed was missing due to no fault of the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court can direct registration of a sale deed under Section 77 of the Registration Act, a sale deed, the original of which is produced in part, while an alleged copy is produced regarding the rest of the document? 2. Whether a decree for registration could be passed in respect of a document, which had been tampered with and a portion of the original of which was not to be traced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Civil Court has the power to admit secondary evidence of the contents of the original document and to reconstruct the document as such, and to grant a decree for registration, if the Court upholds the plaintiff's contention on merits. 2. A decree for registration should be conditional upon payment of the balance of consideration by the respondent to the appellant.
Final Decision: The decree of the Courts below is upheld subject to the modification that the decree for registration shall be conditional upon payment of the balance of consideration of Rs. 1000/- by the respondent to the appellant within 15 days of the signing of the decree. In case of non-compliance by the respondent, the registering officer shall not register the document and the suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed with costs throughout.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendant against the decree, dated, 24-11-1959, passed by Shri V. D. Joshi, Additional District Judge, Betul, in Civil Appeal No. 6-A of 1957, affirming the decree, dated, 18-7-1957, passed by Shri G. K. Parashar, Second additional Civil Judge, Betul, in Civil Suit No. 4-A of 1957. Equivalent Citation:
( 2 ) THE respondent executed a registered sale deed, dated, 10-9-1947 in favour of the appellant regarding certain malik makbuza land, having an area of 19. 40 acres, for a consideration of Rs. 1900/ -. The sale deed was probably executed at the time of partition of the country, when the respondent was probably scared on account of his anxiety for his safety. That was undoubtedly an out and out sale deed, although the respondent's contention was that it was a mortgage. However, he did not make any attempt to establish his allegation about the transaction being a mortgage.
( 3 ) THE appellant leased back the fields to the respondent on 15-9-1947. The lease was for the agricultural year 1947-48; and as such was to expire on 2-5-1948.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, the respondent took a loan from one, Rameshwar and put his signature in the Ticket Bahi of Rameshwar on 13-6-1948. According to her, all the trouble started after that.
( 5 ) THE appellant was alleged to have executed a return sale deed, dated, 8-7-1948 (Ex. P. 10) regarding the very property having an area of 19. 40 acres for a consideration of Rs. 3800/ -. The alleged sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar of Betul, who also happened to be the District Registrar of the District. This step was taken on the advice of the Sub-Registrar, Multai, within whose jurisdiction the document had been executed, but who happened to be the son of the appellant, Mst. Saraswatibai. The Sub-Registrar, Betulads all attempts to summon the executant, who was a Pardanashin lady. Therefore, a commission was issued to the Tahsildar, Multai for her examination on commission regarding the execution of the document. Summonses were issued to her at her reported residence with her son at Multai, as also at two of the villages, namely, Mandhvi where the appellant was said to be residing, and at Bodhia where the appellant has her cultivation. However, the fact stands that she could not be served, with the result that the Sub-Registrar, Betul did not pass any orders about registration. Subsequently when the respondent moved the Sub-Registrar about passing a specific order, he passed an order, dated 22-11-1952 refusing to register the document. Hence the respondent filed the present suit on 17-12-1952 under section 77 of the Registration Act for getting the summary order of the Sub-Registrar set aside and for registration of the sale deed.
( 6 ) THE alleged sale deed, dated, 8-7-1948 was executed on two sheets. It was intact when it was presented before the Sub-Registrar, as also when the present suit was filed. But when the record of the present suit was requisitioned in connection with another case pending in the High Court, the second sheet of the sale deed bearing certain recitals and the signature of the appellant along with the signatures of the attesting witnesses was found to be missing. It could nut be traced out as to who was responsible for the loss of one sheet of the sale deed, which was material. Therefore, the respondent produced to copy of the original sale deed, which showed the contents of the missing sheet. . The question, therefore, arises whether the Civil Court can direct registration of a sale deed equivalent Citation: under Section 77 of the Registration Act, a sale deed, the original of which is produced in part, while an alleged copy is produced regarding the rest of the document. The part of the sale deed along with the copy as reconstructed by the trial Court is on record, as is evident from the documents (Exs. P. 10 to P. 12 ).
( 7 ) THE appellant's defence was that she had never executed any sale deed and the so-cal
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
