2018 (5) TMI 2136 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of registered sale deed - authority of law to cancel the registered sale deed after a sale deed has been registered under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 even if allegation of impersonation/fraud are made - allegations of fraud are essentially an allegation of fact which need examination of oral or documentary evidence and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before competent civil court or not? - Whether the judgment in the case of RAJ KUMARI VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THR. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE LUCKNOW OTHERS 2014 (3) TMI 1206 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT or the judgment in the case of RADHEY SHYAM ARORA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS 2013 (11) TMI 1802 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT lays down the correct law? HELD THAT - On going through the Division Bench judgments in Raj Kumari and Radhey Shyam Arora we do not find any conflict in the conclusions arrived. In Raj Kumari a Division Bench while examining the issue that whether an administrative authority while acting upon the government order dated 13.08.2013 could have cancelled a registered sale deed by relying upon a Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanalla Malleswari Vs. Ananthalu Sayamma 2006 (10) TMI 517 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT held that once incumbents who have proceeded to execute the sale deed have no authority to execute sale deed then rightful order has been passed and accordingly in the facts of the case there is no occasion for this Court to take a different or contrary view as any interference would subscribe void transactions. Whether a sale deed registered under the Act 1908 can be cancelled or set aside by registering authority or by any other authority invoking administrative powers if the registration is questioned on the count of impersonation/fraud? - HELD THAT - The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 confers unfettered and arbitrary powers upon the Registering Authority in violation of the express provisions of the Registration Act and such Government Order cannot be invoked to annul a document. The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 is not only arbitrary but is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. If this Court while undertaking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interferes with the orders challenged in this petition then that would result into restoration of an illegality. It is well settled that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must not be exercised if that restores and perpetuates an illegal order. Hon ble Supreme Court in G. Venkateswara Rao Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh and others AIR 1966 SC 828 concluded that though the State Government had no power to review its earlier order but if quashing of order reviewed would lead to restoration of an illegal order then High Court must refuse to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power. It is also well settled that the discretionary power vested with this Court is supposed to be invoked by taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances inter alia the facts of the case the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal etc. and further that no writ order or direction is required to be given if that does not subscribe to justice or serves the cause of justice. In the case in hand as already stated it is the position admitted even by the petitioner that the sale deed was registered in her favour subsequent to registration of sale deed in favour of respondent no. 4 Smt. Sheela Rai. In view of this admission it would not be appropriate to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner as that would restore an illegality. The writ petition as such deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition hence is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Assistant Registrar to cancel a registered sale deed under the Registration Act, 1908.
2. Necessity of examining fraud allegations through oral or documentary evidence before a competent civil court.
3. Correctness of the judgments in Raj Kumari vs. State of U.P. and Radhey Shyam Arora vs. State of U.P.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the Assistant Registrar to Cancel a Registered Sale Deed:
The court examined whether the Assistant Registrar has the authority to cancel a registered sale deed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, even if allegations of impersonation or fraud are made. The judgment concluded that once a sale deed has been registered, the registering authority has no power or authority under the Act to cancel the registration, even if allegations of impersonation or fraud are alleged. This conclusion was supported by a Division Bench judgment in Krishna Kumar Saxena vs. State of U.P., which held that the Registration Act is a complete code for the registration of documents and does not confer any quasi-judicial power on the Registering Authority to annul a document post-registration. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P., which held that the registering authority could not decide the title or rights of the parties to the agreement and that any irregularity in the registered document must be challenged before a competent court.

2. Necessity of Examining Fraud Allegations through Oral or Documentary Evidence:
The court addressed whether allegations of fraud require examination through oral or documentary evidence before a competent civil court. It was emphasized that allegations of fraud are essentially factual and need to be adjudicated based on evidence presented before a competent civil court. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Satya Pal Anand, which stated that if a registered document is alleged to be illegal or irregular, the appropriate course of action is to challenge it through proper legal proceedings in a civil court.

3. Correctness of Judgments in Raj Kumari vs. State of U.P. and Radhey Shyam Arora vs. State of U.P.:
The court considered whether the judgments in Raj Kumari vs. State of U.P. and Radhey Shyam Arora vs. State of U.P. were conflicting. Upon review, the court found no conflict between the conclusions of the two cases. Both judgments held that the registering authority does not have the power to cancel a registered sale deed. The court clarified that the Division Bench in Radhey Shyam Arora did not conclude that a registered sale deed could not be set aside by the registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the question of conflict between the two judgments was deemed non-existent.

Merits of the Writ Petition:
The court also examined the merits of the writ petition, which challenged the cancellation of a sale deed by the Sub Registrar. The petitioner sought to cancel a sale deed executed in favor of another party, claiming it was executed without authority. The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the prior sale deed and had already filed a civil suit to set it aside. It was concluded that the registering authority had no power to cancel the sale deed, and any challenge to the validity of the sale deed should be pursued through civil court proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to continue her legal challenge through the suit proceedings.

Conclusion:
The reference was answered by stating that a sale deed registered under the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be canceled or set aside by the registering authority or any other authority invoking administrative powers, even if the registration is questioned on the grounds of impersonation or fraud.