9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant in the said suit is as follows: The respondent herein executed the sale deed dated 2.11.1977 after receiving the entire sale consideration of ₹ 20,000/-. All the formalities required for the registration of the document have been strictly complied with and the sale deed dated 2.11.1977 was presented for the purpose of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi. The appellant called upon the respondent to register the document by means of a lawyer's notice dated 29.9.1977. The respondent refused to register the document. Thereupon the appellant applied for compulsory registration of the sale deed dated 2.11.1977 and the respondent after receiving the notice of compulsory registration, did not register th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut trees were not agreed to be sold, the appellant, with the help of the scribe and attestors had materially altered the document after the thumb impression of the respondent was taken and before it was given for compulsory registration. In those circumstances the respondent had denied the execution of the said document, which is materially altered. 4. The respondent herein her turn filed the suit O.S. No.3 of 1980 for declaration of her title to the suit property and for permanent injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit property. The case of the respondent in O.S. No.3 of 1980 is that the suit property originally belonged to her father Bossiappan and out of love and affection he had executed a settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question that has to be decided in both these second appeals is, whether the appellant proved the due execution of the sale deed dated 2.11.1977 and whether it should be ordered to be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. 10. Mr. R. Shanmugham, learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that in a suit filed under Section 77 of the Registration Act, praying for a decree directing the registration of document, the enquiry in Court is to be directed only to the following two points: (a) Whether the document had been executed; and (b) Whether certain requirements of law as to the presentation for registration in due time to the proper officer and in the manner prescribed by the Registration Act was complied wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a document does not mean merely signing but signing by way of assent to the terms of the contract of alienation embodied in the document. 12. In dealing with the meaning of admission of execution of document for the purpose of Section 35 of the Registration Act a Division Bench of this Court in Sayyapparaju Surayya v. Koduri Kondamma, (1949) 2 MLJ 684 has held as follows: The admission required under Section 35 of the Registration Act is admission of execution of the document. It may be a sale deed, it may be a mortgage deed. It is not enough for the person, who is the ostensible executant, to admit his signature on a paper on which, it may be, the document is ultimately engrossed. The identity of the paper on which the signature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. As already stated, the execution of a document does not mean mere signing or putting the thumb-impression in the document, but, signing the document or putting the thumb impression in the document by a party by way of an assent to the terms of the sale deed. Simply because the respondent admits her thumb impression in Ex. A1, it cannot be held that she admits the execution of Ex. A1. The specific case of the respondent that the recitals in Ex. A1 regarding the 5 HP. Kirloskar oil engine and 16 coconut trees were not there in the document Ex. A1 when she affixed her thumb impression on Ex. A1, but, they were interpolated or inserted in the document Ex. A1, after she affixed her thumb impression, stands proved by the evidence of P.W.4 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. 271 this Court dealing with the scope of enquiry by the civil court in a suit filed under Section 77 of the Registration Act has held as follows: When a document is presented to a Registrar of Assurances for registration and it bears on its face signs of having been tampered with, he has only to answer the question whether the document is in the state in which it was executed by the parties to it. He would be exceeding his functions if he went into a roving enquiry to guess at the probabilities of its provisions; and in a suit under Section 77, Registration Act, the same considerations should guide the Court which should guide the Registrar in considering his duty to register or to refuse registration. 14. In these circumstances, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
