2008 (9) TMI 978 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of the Sale Deeds.
2. Bias in the enquiry conducted by the District Registrar.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to order an enquiry.
4. Impact of the civil suit dismissal on the writ petition.

Summary:

1. Genuineness of the Sale Deeds:
The controversy arose from two conveyances registered on 14.3.1989, both recorded as Deed No.3203 of 1989 in Book No.1, Volume No.75. The respondent No.1 alleged that his genuine deed had been replaced with a forged deed of the appellant. The District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, conducted an enquiry and found the respondent No.1's deed to be genuine. The appellant challenged this finding, arguing that the enquiry was biased and did not consider the genuineness of his deed.

2. Bias in the Enquiry Conducted by the District Registrar:
The appellant contended that the District Registrar, who lodged the complaint, should not have conducted the enquiry as he was biased. The High Court's direction to the same officer to conduct the enquiry was challenged on the grounds of prejudice and bias. The Supreme Court agreed that the District Registrar, having already formed an opinion, should not have been entrusted with the enquiry.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Order an Enquiry:
The respondent No.1 argued that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, was competent to order an enquiry to ascertain the facts. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the High Court's direction for a fact-finding enquiry was within its jurisdiction and could not be challenged on the ground that the Registration Act did not provide for such an enquiry.

4. Impact of the Civil Suit Dismissal on the Writ Petition:
The appellant argued that the dismissal of the civil suit filed by Dipankar Dey, on behalf of the appellant's vendor's daughter, precluded any further enquiry into the genuineness of his deed. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the suit's dismissal did not resolve the issue of the deed's genuineness, which remained to be decided.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, directing the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal, to conduct a separate enquiry into the genuineness of the appellant's document. The appellant was instructed to appear before the Inspector General on 20th October, 2008. If the Inspector General found the appellant's deed to be genuine, necessary steps were to be taken to correct any errors in the registration records. If the deed was found not to be genuine, the enquiry would be closed, and the District Registrar would proceed as per the High Court's order. There was no order as to costs.