RAJNI TANDON vs DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(UK) 393

2009 (2) UAD 562
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2004
RAJNI TANDON – Appellant
Versus
DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 29.07.2009

For the Appellant :Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Abhijit Sengupta (NP), Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee (NP), Advocates.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908, Sec. 32(a) — Construing of — Person holding a power of attorney notarized by a public Notary is entitled to present a document for registration before Registration Office and get it registered, provided he actually signs or marks it in token of its execution, whether for himself or on behalf of some other person. (Paras 18, 23, 24, 29, 30)

       (B) Registration Act, 1908, Sec. 32 — Use of word "or" in — Object of — Use of word "or" between clauses of Section 32 demonstrates that said clauses were intended to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively — Settled law is that the use of the word 'or' is used to signify the disjunctive nature of a provisio. (Para 20)
       (C) Object of registration of a document — Such object is designed to guard against fraud by obtaining a contemporaneous publication and an unimpeachable record of such document. (Para 27)

       (D) Registration Act, 1908, Sec. 33 — Provision of — Applicability of — Provisions of Section 33 will come into play only in cases where presentation of a document for registration is in terms of Section 32(c) of the Act — Only in case where person(s) signing the documents cannot himself present the document before registering officer and gives a power of attorney to another to present the document that provisions of Section 33 get attracted — Only in such a case such power of attorney has to be executed and authenticated in the manner provided under Section 33(i)(a) of the Act. (Paras 28, 29, 30)
       ¼v½ jftLVªs'ku ,DV 1908] /kkjk 32(a) & ,slk O;fDr ftlds i{k esa uksVjh ifCyd }kjk lR;kfir eq[krkj ukek gS iathdj.k gsrq nLrkost jftLVªs'ku dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djus o mls iathd`r djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS & izfrcU/k ;g gS fd iz'uxr nLrkost mlds Lo;a ds }kjk okLro esa vius gLrk{kjksa ls fu"ikfnr gks] Hkys gh og mlij Lo;a dh ;k fdlh vU; dh vksj ls fu"iknu ds :i esa vius gLrk{kj djsA

        ¼izLrj 18] 23] 24] 29] 30½



       ¼c½ jftLVªs'ku ,DV] 1908] /kkjk 32 & mDr /kkjk esa 'kCn "or" ds iz;ksx dk mn~ns';A ¼izLrj 20½



       ¼l½ nLrkost ds iathdj.k dk m|s'; /kks[kk/kM+h ls cpus ds fy;s rFkk ,sls nLrkost ds vukf/k{ksuh; vfHkys[k gsrqA ¼izLrj 27½



       ¼n½ jftLVªs'ku ,DV] 1908] /kkjk 33 & /kkjk 33 ds izko/kku dsoy mu ekeyksa esa ykxw gksaxs tgk¡ iathdj.k gsrq dksbZ nLrkost /kkjk 32(c) ds vUrxZr izLrqr fd;k tk;s & mDr izko/kku dsoy ,sls ekeys esa ykxw gksaxs tgk¡ nLrkost fu"ikfnr djus okyk O;fDr mldks iathdj.k gsrq Lo;a jftLVªh dk;kZy; esa izLrqr uk djs ;k dj lds vkSj mls izLrqr djus gsrq eq[krkjukek fdlh ds i{k esa djs & mlh n'kk esa eq[krkj ukes dk iathd`r gksuk vko';d gSA ¼izLrj 28] 29] 30½

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. – The present Civil Appeal raises questions relating to interpretation of Section 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The dispute pertains to a Flat situated on the ground floor of a building commonly known as “Nilachal” at Tollygunge, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The appellant by virtue of a Registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990 purchased the said premises from one Sri Nandlal Tantia (also referred to as Shri N.L. Tantia), Karta of M/s R.L. Tantia & Sons (HUF). The said Deed of Conveyance was executed by the constituted attorney of Shri N.L. Tantia, Shri Indra Kumar Halani, on the basis of a Power of Attorney). It is pertinent of mention herein that the said premises was purchased by Shri Nandlal Tantia in his capacity as a Karta of M/s R.L. Tantia and sons (HUF) in August 1978. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar (Predecessor in interest of Respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed to stay free of charge in the said premises from October, 1978 as a personal gesture of Shri Nandlal Tantia as a licensee only. Sri N.L. Tantia, Karta of M/s R.L. Tantia & Sons intimated the Society about their ownership in the said premises and asked them to send all future correspondence and maintenance bills in their name. They also informed the society that Mrs. Abha Rani Ghosh Dastidar was temporarily staying in the said premises as a licensee.

3. It is the case of the Appellant that all records/documents, conveyance deed, corporation records, maintenance bills of the “Nilachal Housing Society” in which the said premises was located, resolution of the “Nilachal Housing Society” under the West Bengal Apartment Owners Act giving the detailed list of flat owners, show N.L. Tantia/R.L. Tantia and Sons as the owner of the said premises.

4. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar served a notice in the year 1982 on the Society as to why maintenance bills etc. were not made out in her name. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar thereafter filed Civil Suit No. 322 of 1982 against the Society asking them to include her name as the owner and send all correspondence, maintenance bills etc to her. The President and Secretary of the Housing Society filed a reply in this Suit stating that Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh, Dastidar could not be recognized as a owner in absence of any document to prove her ownership. She was asked to submit better documents proving her ownership.

5. M/s. R.L. Tantia & Sons (HUF) served a notice dated 20.4.1983 to Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar revoking the licence granted and asking for vacant possession of the flat. When Smt. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar refused to vacate the flat, Mr. Nandlal Tantia filed Suit No. 174 of 1983 for eviction against her.

6. The Appellant herein after coming to know that a Suit for Eviction filed by his Predecessor in interest was pending moved an Application for impleadment as a party. This application for impleadment filed by the Appellant was rejected. The Title Suit No. 174 of 1983 filed by the erstwhile owner Mr. Nandlal Tantia was dismissed on 29.01.1991 for default due to the fact that Sri N.L. Tantia having sold the property to the Appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter.

7. The Appellant after being refused to be made a party in Suit for Eviction filed a fresh Suit in May 1990 for Eviction, Possession and Damages for unauthorized occupation of the property against the Respondents. This Suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 24 of 1991.

8. Respondent No. 2 alone contested the Suit. The said defendant contended that Nandlal Tantia was not the owner of the Suit property and he had not right title and interest therein and as such the Appellant did not acquire any right, title and interest in the Suit premises by virtue of her purchase of the same by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990. The said Respondent further made out a case for acquisition of title by adverse possession upon contention that the sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(UK) 393

2009 (2) UAD 562SUPREME COURT OF INDIAHon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. ChauhanCivil Appeal No. 4671 of 2004RAJNI TANDON – AppellantVersusDULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR & ANR. – RespondentsDecided on : 29.07.2009

Cases Referred (2)

2009 (2) UAD 562
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2004
RAJNI TANDON – Appellant
Versus
DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 29.07.2009