2022 (5) TMI 1578 - SC - Indian Laws

Refusal of registration - Whether the recourse by the second Respondent to Section 72 of the Registration Act, against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing registration on the basis of the Appellant's denial of execution, would deprive them of any remedy whatsoever? - Appellant's admission of her signatures and thumb impressions/fingerprints on the sale deed also amounts to an admission of its execution or not. HELD THAT - The execution of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document. Such an interpretation accounts for circumstances where an individual signs a blank paper and it is later converted into a different document, or when an individual is made to sign a document without fully understanding its contents. Adopting a contrary interpretation would unfairly put the burden upon the person denying execution to challenge the registration before a civil court or a writ court, since registration will have to be allowed once the signature has been admitted. The Registration Act exists so that information about documents can be put into the public domain, where it can be accessed by anyone in order to prevent forgeries and fraud, and so that individuals can be aware of the status of properties. If the interpretation conflating signing with execution is adopted, it would ensure that the Sub-Registrars/Registrars will continuously end up registering documents whose validity will inevitably be then disputed in a civil suit or a writ petition. While the suit or writ proceedings continue, the document would remain on the public records as a registered instrument, which has the potential to cause more disruption. Hence, such an interpretation should not be adopted by this Court. The plea of the Appellant, that the purported sale deed though signed by her was procured by fraud and undue influence, was a matter which raised a serious substantive dispute. In support of her contentions, the Appellant has also adduced before us the inspection report by the Sub-Registrar and the Naib Tahsildar. However, we are inclined to hold that we cannot decide on the merits of the dispute at this stage, since the Registrar clearly exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating on the issue of fraud and undue influence. The Registrar purported to exercise the powers conferred Under Section 74 and arrived at a finding that the sale deed had been duly signed by the Appellant and was therefore liable to be registered. However, the objections of the Appellant raised serious issues of a triable nature which could only have been addressed before and adjudicated upon by a court of competent civil jurisdiction - As regards the subject matter of the sale deed, the second Respondent has instituted a suit for possession before the Civil Judge, Senior Division Fast Track Court Suit No 264 of 2016, where certain proceedings are pending. In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the opinion that the Registrar in the present case acted contrary to law by directing the sale deed to be registered. The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has observed that registration does not depend upon the consent of the executant but on the Registrar's finding that the executant had actually signed the document. The High Court held that having found in the course of the enquiry that the sale deed was duly prepared by a scribe, that the attesting witness had stated that the sale deed was signed by the Appellant and she also placed her fingerprints in their presence, it was open to the Registrar to direct registration in spite of a denial of its execution by the Appellant - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Scope of power exercised by the Deputy Registrar under Section 35(3)(a) of the Registration Act.
3. Whether the denial of execution of the sale deed by the Appellant was correctly interpreted by the Deputy Registrar.
4. Whether the District Registrar could consider the appeal as a representation and exercise power as an original authority.
5. Whether the sale deed registered on 16 April 2012 could be set aside by the Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant under Article 226, citing that the Sub-Registrar's role is limited to ensuring compliance with the Registration Act and not to adjudicate on the validity of the title or legality of the transaction. The High Court held that disputed questions of fact, such as fraud or undue influence, should be resolved by a competent civil court. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be used to resolve complex factual disputes that require detailed evidence.

2. Scope of Power Exercised by the Deputy Registrar under Section 35(3)(a) of the Registration Act:

Section 35(3)(a) mandates that if a person denies the execution of a document, the Sub-Registrar must refuse to register it. The Supreme Court clarified that the Sub-Registrar's role is limited to verifying whether the document was executed by the person it purports to be executed by. The Sub-Registrar does not have the authority to conduct a detailed inquiry into the validity of the document or the underlying transaction. The Registrar, however, has broader powers under Sections 73 and 74 to conduct an inquiry into whether the document was executed and whether the requirements of the law have been complied with.

3. Whether the Denial of Execution of the Sale Deed by the Appellant was Correctly Interpreted by the Deputy Registrar:

The Supreme Court held that the Appellant's denial of execution was validly interpreted by the Sub-Registrar. The Appellant had raised serious allegations of fraud and undue influence, contending that her signatures were obtained forcibly and that the sale deed did not reflect the agreed terms. The Sub-Registrar's refusal to register the document was based on these objections, which raised substantial issues that could not be resolved in a summary proceeding.

4. Whether the District Registrar Could Consider the Appeal as a Representation and Exercise Power as an Original Authority:

The Supreme Court noted that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 72 since the refusal was based on denial of execution. However, the Registrar proceeded as if it were an application under Section 73, conducting an inquiry under Section 74. Both parties participated in this inquiry, effectively treating it as a Section 73 application. The Court held that the mislabeling of the application did not vitiate the proceedings, as the substance of the inquiry aligned with the provisions of Sections 73 and 74.

5. Whether the Sale Deed Registered on 16 April 2012 Could be Set Aside by the Court:

The Supreme Court concluded that the Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating on issues of fraud and undue influence, which are triable only by a competent civil court. The Registrar's order directing the registration of the sale deed was set aside. The Court emphasized that the Registrar's inquiry is summary in nature and does not replace the need for a detailed judicial determination of complex factual disputes.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the District Registrar's order. The Court clarified that the present judgment does not affect any pending civil or criminal proceedings related to the transaction. The Registrar's role is limited to verifying execution and compliance with the Registration Act, while substantive disputes must be resolved by a civil court.