1966 (11) TMI 1 - HC - Income Tax

Document Registration Validated; Mandamus Issued to Complete Process

Smt. Padmakan Singh Versus Third Joint Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore, And Others.

The court held that the document was duly registered despite the procedural defect of not endorsing the word 'registered.' The income-tax authorities' ... It is settled law that in a statutory declaration, all the requirements of the section should be and must be strictly complied with literally - otherwise, it may prove fatal to the action proposed to be taken, especially in case where property rights are involved - on the date of the registration of the document there was no statutory declaration prohibiting the registering officer from completing the registration - document could be registered Issues Involved:1. Whether the document was duly registered.2. The effect of non-compliance with sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act.3. The validity of the declaration by the income-tax authorities under section 2(ii) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949.4. The jurisdiction and duty of the registering officer in the context of the registration process.5. The issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the registration officer to deliver the document.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the document was duly registered:The mortgagor and mortgagee filed writ petitions for the delivery of a simple mortgage deed executed and registered on May 15, 1963. The Sub-Registrar had completed all formalities except the endorsement of the word 'registered.' The court considered whether the omission of this endorsement affected the registration. It was held that the mere omission to endorse the word 'registered' did not invalidate the registration, as it was a procedural defect and not fatal to the validity of the registration. The registration was deemed complete upon compliance with sections 34, 35, 58, and 59 of the Registration Act.2. The effect of non-compliance with sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act:The court reviewed various case laws and observed that non-compliance with sections 60 and 61, specifically the endorsement of 'registered' and copying into the register book, was a procedural defect. The court preferred the reasoning of the Calcutta, Oudh, and Madhya Bharat High Courts, which held that such defects did not render the registration invalid. The document had been copied and given a number, and the omission of the endorsement was not considered a defect affecting the validity of the registration.3. The validity of the declaration by the income-tax authorities under section 2(ii) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949:The income-tax authorities argued that the property was benami and belonged to the mortgagor's husband, who owed taxes. They issued letters dated December 14 and 15, 1962, to the Sub-Registrar, requesting him not to register any document transferring the property. These letters were not considered statutory declarations under section 2(ii) of the Act. The court held that the statutory declaration must strictly comply with the requirements of the section, and the letters did not meet these criteria. Therefore, the declaration made on May 27, 1963, was after the date of registration and did not affect the registration process.4. The jurisdiction and duty of the registering officer in the context of the registration process:The registering officer had no jurisdiction to refuse registration based on the income-tax authorities' letters, as they were not statutory declarations. The court emphasized that the registering officer must comply with the statutory duty imposed by the Registration Act. The intervention by the income-tax authorities was not a valid ground for withholding the registration. The registering officer's duty was to complete the registration process and deliver the document.5. The issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the registration officer to deliver the document:The court held that a writ of mandamus was appropriate to compel the registration officer to complete the registration process and deliver the document. The registering officer was a public officer under a statutory duty to complete the registration. The court cited Lord Goddard C. J.'s observation in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner: Ex parte Parker, stating that mandamus could compel any person under a statutory duty to perform a particular act. The rule was made absolute, and the petitions were allowed, directing the registration officer to deliver the document.Conclusion:The court concluded that the document was duly registered despite the procedural defect of not endorsing the word 'registered.' The income-tax authorities' letters did not constitute a valid statutory declaration under section 2(ii) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949. The registering officer had a statutory duty to complete the registration process, and a writ of mandamus was issued to compel the delivery of the document. The petitions were allowed, and the rule was made absolute.