Registration Act permits civil suits challenging registration orders only when refusals occur, not when approval is granted, within the limitation outlined in the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - By way of presenting the instant second appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Title Appeal 09 of 2013 thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2012 and 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court no. 2, Agartala, West Tripura in case no. T.S. 124 of 1995.

2. Heard Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AK Deb, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Das and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The facts of the case, as projected by the learned appellate court, may be reproduced hereunder:

"(i) The original plaintiff Mihir Datta Biswas, now deceased (the predecessor of the plaintiff respondents) was the owner of a brick field and during his life time the husband of the defendant (the predecessor of the defendant-appellant) entered into an agreement with plaintiff for supply of bricks to the husband of the defendant and he agreed to advance Rs. 10,000/- to the original plaintiff. But, the husband of the defendant paid only Rs. 2,600/- only out of agreed amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which the original plaintiff demanded for the rest amount of money when the husband of the defendant in collusion with deed writer Sri. Anath Bandhu Chakraborty created a false Bainapatra and placed the same through the defendant before the Sub-Registrar Sadar for registration. But, the predecessor of the respondent plaintiffs did never execute any such Bainapatra in favour of the defendant and not only this, the predecessor of the respondent-plaintiffs also did never see even the face of the defendant prior of his appearance before the District Registrar. However, the sub Registrar, Sadar, refused to register that forged document (Bainapatra) since the predecessor of the respondent-plaintiffs being the executor of that Bainapatra was absent before the Sub-Registrar, Sadar. Accordingly, the predecessor of the present appellant-defendant filed an appeal in the court of District Registrar under section 73 of the Indian REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 for registration of that Bainapatra in SL No. 4051 and that appeal was registered vide No. 1/DR/81. Subsequently, District Registrar, West Tripura, Agartala misinterpreted the law and power vested with him and erroneously by his order dated 05.11.85 directed the District Sub Registrar, Sadar to register the alleged deed of Bainapatra and after passing of that order by the Appellate forum, the District Sub-Registrar on 15.11.1985 registered the alleged deed of Bainapatra vide No. 1-6996 dated 15.11.85.

(ii) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of District Registrar, West Tripura, Agartala original plaintiff Mihir Datta Biswas (now deceased) filed a suit on 29.04.1987 seeking for a decree to declare that the impugned order dated 05.11.1985 passed by the District Registrar in appeal No. 1/DR/81 ordering that said Bainapatra dated 11.01.80 Sl No. 4051 to be registered is of no value and void and the alleged Bainapatra registered subsequently on 15.11.85 in pursuance to the order dated 05.11.85 of the District Registrar is liable to be cancelled and delivered up and accordingly a note is to be sent to the District Sub-Registrar, Agartala for cancel of the said Bainapatra which was registered on 15.11.85 and also to declare t