Judgment :- VENKATADRI J. These two writ petitions are filed by the mortgagor and the mortgagee respectively for the issue of a writ of mandamus to deliver to them the deed of simple mortgage executed by the mortgagor (Padmakan Singh) in favour of the mortgagee (The Coimbatore Vasunthara Bank Limited) and registered on May 15, 1963 The circumstances that led to the filing of the writ petitions are these Srimathi Padmakan Singh, the petitioner in W. P. No. 799 of 1963, is a permanent resident of Coimbatore. She owns the property, No. 17/73, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore. Her husband is carrying on business at Coimbatore, and is assessed to income-tax. She applied to the Coimbatore Vasunthara Bank for a loan of Rs. 50, 000 on the mortgage of her house mentioned above. As she did not desire to attend the office of the registering officer, she wrote a letter on May 15, 1963, requesting the officer, the Third Joint Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore, to go over to her residence, for the purpose of registering the document on payment of the necessary fees. The Sub-Registrar came to her residence on May 15, 1963. The Sub-Registrar showed her a letter in which it was alleged that income-tax assessment proceedings against her husband were pending, that the property which she held in her name was really benami for him, and that no document dealing with the said property should be registered. Nevertheless, the Sub-Registrar proceeded with the registration of the document. The mortgagor admitted the execution of the document. The particulars were endorsed. The money payable to the mortgagor was paid by the nortgagee's agent, in the presence of the Sub-Registrar, and an endorsement to that effect was also made on the document. The registering officer also affixed his signature and date to the document. Afterwards, the Sub-Registrar took the document in order to copy the contents of the document in Book No. 1 and the document was given the number P. 20/63 in Book No. 1, but there is no word "registered" Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar addressed a letter on May 16, 1963, to the District Registrar, Coimbatore, seeking his instructions, in view of the letter received by him from the income-tax authorities, before taking further proceedings for the completion of the registration of the document. The District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar not to complete registration of the document unless the mortgagor produced a certificate to the effect that she had paid all the income-tax, presumably due and payable by her husband. The District Registrar, Coimbatore, also wrote a letter to the mortgagor on July 12, 1963, that a declaration had been received by him under section 2(ii) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949 (Act XXII of 1949), from the Income-tax Officer and directed her to produce a certificate under section 3 of that Act. The District Registrar also stated that the document in question had not yet been admitted to registration The mortgagor has stated that she is a person permanently residing in India and does not propose to leave India, that as far as she is concerned, she has no hesitation to pay whatever amount is due and payable by her to the income-tax department by way of tax, presumably meaning thereby that she is not responsible or liable to pay the amount of tax due and payable by her husband According to the mortgagor, on May 15, 1963, there was no declaration such as that provided in section 2(ii) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, which prevented the registration of the document and, inasmuch as, having accepted the document and having complied with all the formalities under the Registration Act, there was no choice left with the registering officer except to comply with the other formalities under the Act and deliver the documentAs far as the mortgagee-bank is concerned, their contention is that they have no knowledge of any claim of tax due and payable by the mortgagor, that the title to the property is in the name of the mortgagor having been purchased in her name on February 8, 1960, and that the registering officer cannot therefore raise any question of title in the form of benami in these proceedings. They also contend that the declaration as mentioned in the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act made by the income-tax department was received by the registering officer after the date of registration, and that on the date of registration there was no declaration as contemplated in section 2(ii) of the Act, and further the provisions relating to transactions of immovable property to defraud the revenue have nothing to do with the present transaction nor with the registration of the document. The bank also contends that the Sub-Registrar has failed to discharge the statutory duty imposed on him by the Act, that he has no discretion in the matter and no question of admitting or not admitting the document for registration arises in the present case, and that on the date of the registration of the document, the registering officer was not in possession of any declaration as such made by the Income-tax Officer nor was there any demand for arrears of tax from the mortgagor, and that any subsequent declaration made after the registration would not make the registration of the document void and illegal, and that even otherwise the bank has nothing to do either with the declaration of the title to the property inasmuch as they have advanced money on the security of the property in the presence of the Sub-Registrar The contention of the Income-tax Officer seems to be that his enquiry revealed that the property belongs to the husband of the mortgagor and that the mortgagor is only a benamidar and that she has no title to the property. Her husband owes large amount of tax to the department in respect of his business and assessment proceedings are pending and the department has taken precaution, long before the date of registration, by informing the registering officer not to register any document purporting to effect any transfer of the house belonging to the mortgagor. All the correspondence that passed between the Income-tax Officer and the registering officer should be taken and read together and, in the context, be regarded as relative declaration under section 2(ii) of the Act. All the correspondence that passed between the Income-tax Officer and the registering officer should be taken and read together and, in the context, be regarded as relative declaration under section 2(ii) of the Act. Even otherwise, the process of registration is not complete without the endorsement "registered" on the instrument and, before that step could be taken, the registering officer has been lawfully prohibited by a valid declaration under section 2(ii) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949The contention of the registering officers is that they are within their jurisdiction in withholding registration of the document. They contend that the document has only been accepted for registration but not actually registered On a perusal of the pleadings, the important question that arises for consideration is, when a document can be said to be registered ; in other words, what are the requirements necessary for the completion of the registration of a document In Veerappa Chetty v. Kadiresan Chetty, a Division Bench of this court, after posing the question what is the meaning of the word "registered" proceeded to observe thus "The statute refers to various stages which have to be completed before a document becomes a registered instrument. Section 35 provides that, when the registering officer has satisfied himself that a document has been executed by the persons purporting to execute it, he 'shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive '. Registration, therefore, consists of the acts mentioned in sections 58 to 61 ...... Section 60 provides that the officer should endorse a certificate containing the word ' registered ' together with the number and page of the book in which the document has been copied after the provisions of sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 have been complied with and he is then to sign, seal and date the certificate.... The section proceeds to say that ' the registration of the document shall thereupon be deemed complete'." * In the present case, all the formalities have been completed by the Sub-Registrar except compliance of the provisions mentioned in sections 60 and 61, namely, the endorsement of the certificate "registered" and then copying into the margin of the register book. The section proceeds to say that ' the registration of the document shall thereupon be deemed complete'." * In the present case, all the formalities have been completed by the Sub-Registrar except compliance of the provisions mentioned in sections 60 and 61, namely, the endorsement of the certificate "registered" and then copying into the margin of the register book. The point for consideration is whether the mere omission to endorse the word "registered" would affect the registration of a documentThe whole object of the Registration Act is to guard against fabrication of documents of title from time to time and the real purpose of registration is to check forgery and to provide good evidence of the genuineness of the written documents. Registration is mainly required for the purpose of giving notoriety to the deed and to provide a guarantee of the genuineness of the instrument. The evidence of registration is itself some evidence of execution against the person by whom it purports to be executed. The certificate of registration is some evidence of execution against the party making admission. It is true that a certificate of registration is evidence that a document was duly registered. It gives the document the character of a registered document. The certificate, though it may be indicative and afford proof of due registration, does not by itself affect registration. The endorsement to be made by the Sub-Registrar under section 60 is only a relevant evidence of proving facts mentioned in the endorsement. The certificate of registration endorsed on a document, though, prima facie evidence that the document has been duly registered, is not conclusive evidence of valid registration. The mere omission of the registering officer to affix his seal to the endorsement of registration is not a defect fatal to the validity of registration of the instrument There is conflict of opinion among High Courts in India as to what is the effect of non-compliance of the provisions mentioned in sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act. The mere omission of the registering officer to affix his seal to the endorsement of registration is not a defect fatal to the validity of registration of the instrument There is conflict of opinion among High Courts in India as to what is the effect of non-compliance of the provisions mentioned in sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act. In the earliest case on the subject, Sitanath Bandopadhya v. Bissessur Roy Chaudhuri, the learned judges of the Calcutta High Court observed that the sealing of a deed was not an essential part of the act of registration, and that the omission of the registering officer to seal a deed was a mere defect of procedure, and the defect was cured by the provisions of section 87 of the Registration Act. In Sobhnath Singh v. Pirthipal Singh, the Sub-Registrar came to the residence, the document was presented to him, the deed was properly executed and attested and the necessary formalities of registration were gone through and the provisions of sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 were complied with. Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar issued the usual receipt under section 52 and kept the document for being copied in register No. 1 and for endorsing the final certificate of registration as required by section 60(1). While so, the document was snatched away from the custody of the registering officer. The question was whether the deed executed operated to effect the transfer of the properties covered by it. The Chief Court of Oudh observed that it was the compliance with the provisions of sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 which constituted registration of a document and not the presence of the certificate under section 60 of the Act, that the subsequent formalities were mere ministerial acts and that the defects occasioned therein by the acts or omissions of the Registrar or irregularities in carrying out the duties enjoined by sections 60 and 61 would merely constitute defects of procedure for which neither the donor nor the donee was responsible. In Kishangopal v. Nathulal, a Division Bench of the then Madhya Bharat High Court observed that, where a document was registered by a Registrar after complying with the provisions of sections 58 and 59 but he failed to make an endorsement as required by section 60, the defect was a defect of procedure, which did not render the registration invalid by reason of section 87 of the Registration ActBut, in Mt. Domini Kuer v. Ramsaran Lal, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court observed, after dealing with the provisions contained in sections 34, 35, 52, 58, 60 and 61 of the Indian Registration Act, thus "From the above provisions of the Act, therefore, we gather that the registration of a document is deemed to be complete under section 61(2) of the Act, only when the document has been copied into the margin of the register-book as required by section 61(1) of the Act. From the above scheme of the Act, therefore, there is no doubt that the registration of the document shall be deemed to be complete only when it is copied, and not otherwise." * In Sharnappa v. Pathru Saheb, there was compliance with the provisions of sections 34, 35, 52, 58 and 59 but not with the provisions of sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act. A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court observed that the non-compliance with the provisions of sections 60 and 61(1) could not be said to be merely a defect in procedure but was a total violation of the provisions or requirements of the Act which made the registration of the document incomplete In the two decisions cited above, it is not stated as to what would be the effect of such a document, whether it would invalidate the whole transaction and whether the document becomes void by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of sections 60 and 61 of the Act. Under the circumstances, I would prefer to follow the opinion expressed by the Calcutta, Oudh and Madhya Bharat High Courts, as the reasoning there appears to me to be logical and reasonable. In the instant case, only the word "registered" was not endorsed on the instrument. Under the circumstances, I would prefer to follow the opinion expressed by the Calcutta, Oudh and Madhya Bharat High Courts, as the reasoning there appears to me to be logical and reasonable. In the instant case, only the word "registered" was not endorsed on the instrument. The contents of the document have been copied and a number has also been given to the document and the Sub-Registrar would have endorsed on the document "registered" as required by section 60(1) of the Act but for the intervention of the income-tax authorities directing him not to register the document. The registering officer has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of a document and as observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kalyanasundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar "Registration ... is the act of an officer appointed by law for the purpose, who, if the deed is executed by or on behalf of the donor and is attested by at least two witnesses, must register it if it is presented by a person having the necessary interest within the prescribed period." In this case, the income-tax authorities intervened in the course of the transaction directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the document on the ground that the property was purchased benami in the name of the mortgagor and that the mortgagor's husband owed a large amount of tax and that he had not been given a clearance certificate. It is to be remembered that the document in question was presented to the Sub-Registrar by the mortgagor at her residence on May 15, 1963. Just then, the Sub-Registrar produced a demi-official letter, said to have been addressed to him, in which it was alleged that income-tax assessment proceedings against the mortgagor's husband were pending, that the property in question was really benami for him and that no document dealing with the said property should be registered. Just then, the Sub-Registrar produced a demi-official letter, said to have been addressed to him, in which it was alleged that income-tax assessment proceedings against the mortgagor's husband were pending, that the property in question was really benami for him and that no document dealing with the said property should be registered. But the District Registrar has, in his affidavit, stated that as the parties insisted upon the acceptance of the document for registration, the Joint Sub-Registrar, on the instructions of the District Registrar, attended at the private residence of the petitioner (mortgagor) on May 15, 1963, accepted the document, recorded her admission of execution and the payment of the mortgage money on the document and kept it pending without registration, as a doubt was felt on the point whether the document could be registered or not in view of the communication of the Income-tax Officer dated December 15, 1962 It is, therefore, necessary to say somewhat in detail the part played by the income-tax authorities in this matter of registration. The income-tax authorities got information that the husband of the mortgagor, in view of the pressure of the impending back assessments against him, was likely to leave India for good and settle elsewhere disposing of the house in Coimbatore. Therefore, by their letters dated December 14, 1962, and December 15, 1962, the authorities requested the Sub-Registrar not to register any document executed by Sippy (husband of the mortgagor) or his wife (mortgagor) or both for transferring the ownership of the building. The whole tenor of both these letters seems to be a sort of warning to the registering officer not to register such a document. This is evident from the reply of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore, dated December 20, 1962, wherein it is stated that suitable action will be taken if and when the document in question is presented for registration. Nothing happened afterwards till May 15, 1963, when the document was presented for registration. On May 15, 1963, in spite of the warnings received from the income-tax authorities, the Sub-Registrar, on the advice of the District Registrar, proceeded in the matter of the registration of the document. Nothing happened afterwards till May 15, 1963, when the document was presented for registration. On May 15, 1963, in spite of the warnings received from the income-tax authorities, the Sub-Registrar, on the advice of the District Registrar, proceeded in the matter of the registration of the document. Then, on May 18, 1963, the District Registrar addressed a letter to the Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore, asking him whether there was any statutory provision requiring a registering officer to refuse registration of any document presented by a person, against whom a requisition has been received from the Income-tax Officer to refuse registration. On May 27, 1963, for the first time, in reply to the letter of the District Registrar, the Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore, referred to the provisions of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949 Under section 3 of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949 "Mandamus will lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by statute or by the common law to do a particular act, and if a person refrains from doing the act or refrains from wrong motives from exercising a power which it is his duty to exercise, this court will by order of mandamus tell him to do it. Mandamus may go to individuals. It may go to corporations and goes quite independently of whether the individual or body to which it is addressed is or is not a court." * Under the circumstances, the rule is made absolute. The petitions are allowed. No costs.