IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. VINOD KUMAR, JJ.
The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Saifabad, Hyderabad & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Sri P. Balabhaskar Reddy, S/o. P. Mar Reddy & Another - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 446 of 2021
Decided On : 27-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1)(b), Section 23, 49 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 17 - Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Unregistered - Validation of a non-registered document - Transfer of title to be effected, registration is mandatory - Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered - Whether register document is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.
Findings of the Court: Once document is validated by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty, it attains legal force of law and it cannot have any secondary grade recognition. Judge has taken view that once a document is validated by payment of deficit stamp duty, it attains legal force of law and it cannot have any secondary grade recognition; by validating document, transaction which are subject to that document of past was rendered valid; such a validated document cannot be said to be without having force of law; and on said basis appellant cannot refuse to register document submitted by petitioners/respondents herein.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The validity of a document is not achieved merely by validation; without registration, it cannot affect immovable property. [43000013460012] - Validation by payment of deficit stamp duty cures stamp duty deficiency but does not cure the defect of being unregistered; such documents can only be used for collateral transactions or specific relief purposes. [43000013460013][43000013460009] - Proviso to Section 49 allows unregistered documents to be used as evidence in certain collateral or specific relief contexts, but they cannot transfer title or affect immovable property without registration. [43000013460007][43000013460008] - The four-month maximum period under Section 23 for registration is a substantive limit; beyond that period, registration to effect transfer of title is not possible. [43000013460004] - The judgment rejects the view that a validated document attains the legal force of law for all purposes, and remands to consider the validity of the refusal order while noting the need for registration to affect immovable property. [43000013460011][43000013460015] - The Writ Appeal allows the challenge to the single judge’s reasoning that validation equates to legal force and sets aside that portion. [43000013460014]
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the State of Telangana challenging the order dt. 23.02.2021 in W.P.No.16310 of 2019.
2. In that Writ Petition, which was filed by the respondents herein, they have sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the refusal order No.98/2019 dt. 17.07.2019 issued by the 3rd appellant refusing to register document No.P/1053/2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also to set aside the same by directing the 3rd appellant to forthwith register and release the said document.
3. In the said refusal order passed by the 3rd appellant on 17.07.2019, it is stated that the document presented by the respondents is based on the validated document as a link document, and such validated document cannot be taken as a link document as per endorsement No.CIG.Mail/AR/2008, dt. 02.01.2008.
4. The link document to the document No.P/1053/2019 presented by the respondents is a document dt. 15.11.1997, which was validated by payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty on 28.12.1999. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that once a document is validated by payment of deficit stamp duty, it attains the legal force of law and it cannot have any secondary grade recognition; by validating the document dt. 15.11.1997 on 28.12.1999, the transaction which are subject to that document of the past was rendered valid; such a validated document cannot be said to be without having force of law; and on the said basis the 3rd appellant cannot refuse to register the document submitted by the petitioners/respondents herein.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contends that validation of a non-registered document such as sale deed like the document dt. 28.12.1999 merely makes the said document admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’); for a transfer of title to be effected, registration is mandatory under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act; as per Section 23 of the Act, the maximum time granted for the purpose of registration is only four months from the date of its execution; and beyond the said period, it is not possible to register the document so as to effect a transfer of title.
6. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel appearing for Sri Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, counsel fro the respondents, contends that the reason assigned on 17.07.2019 in the refusal order No.98/2019 of the 3rd appellant is not correct, that it is not one of the reasons which could have been assigned for not registering of document, and so the order dt. 17.07.2019 of the 3rd appellant was rightly interfered by the learned Single Judge.
7. In the instant case, the document which is validated on 28.12.1999 was executed on 15.11.1997 and it was validated by paying the deficit stamp duty and penalty on 28.12.1999 by which time the four months period prescribed in Section 23 of the Act to get the said document registered has already expired.
8. Section 49 of the Registration Act states as under:
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt; or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power.
unless it has been registered;
Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.”
9. Thus, as per the main part of Section 49, it a document such as a sale deed is required by Section 17 or by any pr
If the order of the Registrar directs the document to be registered and the document is duly presented for registration within thirty days after the making of such order, the Sub-Registrar shall obey....
If the order of the Registrar directs the document to be registered and the document is duly presented for registration within thirty days after the making of such order, the Sub-Registrar shall obey....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.