1877 (6) TMI 1 - Other - Indian Laws

Deed Registration Nullified for Non-Compliance with Law

Mohammed Ewaz and Ors. Versus Birj Lall and Ors.

The High Court nullified the registration of a deed of sale due to non-compliance with the Registration Act. The court held that if any person denies ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the registration of the deed of sale.2. Execution of the deed by all parties involved.3. Consequences of partial registration.4. Admissibility of the registered deed in evidence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the registration of the deed of sale:The Respondents challenged the registration of the deed of sale to Shere Mahammed, arguing that it was not properly registered. The High Court concluded that the registration was null because the requisites of the Registration Act were not complied with. Specifically, the deed was brought to the registrar on January 15, and the vendors did not attend, necessitating their summoning. The two sons appeared the next day, admitted their execution, but denied their mother's execution. The sub-registrar made endorsements on the deed and registered it formally. The High Court's decision was primarily based on Section 35 of the Registration Act, Act VIII of 1871, which the High Court interpreted to mean that if any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document.2. Execution of the deed by all parties involved:The deed purported to be executed by three persons: Moburuh Jan and her two sons, Hyat Mohammed and Salamtitoollah. The sons admitted their execution but denied their mother's execution. The subordinate Judge of Bareilly and the Judge of Bareilly found that the mother had not executed the deed, but the two sons had. The decree given by the subordinate Judge, affirmed by the Judge, declared that the Appellants, as heirs of the vendee, were entitled to the rights of Hyat Mohammed and Salamtitoollah in the shares of the mouzahs but refused to decree possession due to the unproven amount of shares.3. Consequences of partial registration:The High Court's interpretation of Section 35 would cause great difficulty and injustice, which the Legislature likely did not intend. The Act should be read to allow partial registration, meaning the registering officer should refuse to register the document only for those who deny execution or are under any disability. The proviso in Section 23 supports the notion of partial registration, allowing a deed to be registered as to one or more persons when they have executed it, even if others execute it later.4. Admissibility of the registered deed in evidence:The High Court stated that unless a deed is registered in accordance with the substantial provisions of the law, it must be regarded as unregistered. However, their Lordships found this too broadly stated. The Act requires registration for notoriety, and once registered, the party is prima facie entitled to give the deed in evidence. If registration could be challenged at any time, it would create uncertainty. The Act provides remedies for refusal to register, but if registered, the deed should be admissible in evidence unless obtained by fraud. The 60th section states that the registration certificate shall be sufficient to prove the document has been duly registered, and the 85th section protects acts done in good faith by the registering officer from being invalid due to procedural defects.Conclusion:Their Lordships advised reversing the High Court's decree and affirming the Judge of Bareilly's decree, dismissing the appeal with costs. The Appellants were awarded the costs of the appeal.