1953 (7) TMI 14 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the registration of the sale-deed.
2. Burden of proof regarding the ownership of the property.
3. Allegations of fraud in the registration process.
4. Intention of the parties regarding the transfer of property.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Registration of the Sale-Deed:
The Plaintiff argued that the registration of the sale-deed was valid and the appellate court erred in holding otherwise. The sale-deed in question was compulsorily registrable under Section 10 of the Hyderabad Registration Act, corresponding to Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. Section 22 (Section 28 of the Indian Registration Act) mandates that registrable documents must be presented for registration within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar where the property is situated. The Plaintiff contended that the registration was valid as the document included property within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar, Shorapur.

The Defendant countered that no part of the property was situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar who registered the document, making the registration invalid. The court found force in the Defendant's contention, noting that the Sub-Registrar gets jurisdiction to register the document only if the property is situated within his jurisdiction. Since the Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the property within the jurisdiction, the registration was deemed void.

2. Burden of Proof Regarding the Ownership of the Property:
The Plaintiff argued that the burden of proof was on the Defendant to show why the document was invalid. However, the court disagreed, stating that the burden of proof was on the Plaintiff to establish the existence of the property and the Defendant's ownership. The Defendant had denied owning any house at Rangampet, and the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. The court noted that the Plaintiff's witnesses did not conclusively establish that the Defendant owned the house at Rangampet.

3. Allegations of Fraud in the Registration Process:
The Defendant argued that the inclusion of the house at Rangampet in the sale-deed was a fraud on the Registration Law, as the property did not exist or was not owned by the Defendant. The court referenced several cases, including Harendralal v. Haridasi Debi (AIR 1914 PC 67), Mathura Prashad v. Chandra Narayan (AIR 1921 PC 8), and Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ramsunder Mai (AIR 1934 PC 157), to highlight that including fictitious property in a deed to obtain registration in a particular sub-district constitutes fraud. The court concluded that the registration was invalid as it was obtained through fraudulent means.

4. Intention of the Parties Regarding the Transfer of Property:
The court emphasized that the intention of the parties is crucial in determining the validity of the registration. The Plaintiff failed to prove that the Defendant intended to transfer the house at Rangampet. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not provide evidence showing the Defendant's interest or title to the property. The court referenced the Privy Council case (AIR 1936 PC 91) to highlight that the intention of the parties is the criterion for determining compliance with registration laws. The court found no evidence of misrepresentation by the Defendant regarding the ownership of the house at Rangampet.

Conclusion:
The Plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant owned a house at Rangampet and intended to transfer it. Consequently, the Sub-Registrar of Shorapur was not competent to register the document, rendering the registration invalid. The appellate court's decision was upheld, and the Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed with costs.