Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 106 (KER)

MADHAVI AMMA v. STATE OF KERALA

1986-03-10

THOMAS, U.L.BHAT

body1986
Judgment :- 1. Appellants herein filed an application before the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri under S.8(1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short'the Act') contending that 37.50 acres of land described in the application is not private forest which has vested in the State under S.3(1) of the Act. They contended that the disputed land is liable to be exempted from vesting under sub-section (2) of S.3 or at any rate under sub-section (3) of S.3 of the Act. The claim was opposed in the counter filed on behalf of the State and the Custodian of Vested Forests. 2. The Forest Tribunal held that the appellants have been the owners in possession of the disputed land, that the land had not been cultivated on or before 10-5-1971 when the Act came into force, that they have proved that the disputed land together with the other lands held by them to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is applicable does not exceed the ceiling area applicable to them under S.82 of the latter Act. The Tribunal did not decide whether they have the requisite intention to cultivate the land. However, the Tribunal held that they are not holding the land under a valid registered document of title executed before 10-5-1971. On the finding that the land was not cultivated prior to 10-5-1971, applicability of sub-section (2) of S.3 was held against. On the finding that they are not holding the land under a valid registered document of title executed before 10-5-1971, applicability of S.3(3) was held against. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the disputed land has vested in the Government and dismissed the application. Hence the appeal. 3. Arguments at the Bar have been confined to the applicability of sub-section (3) of S.3 of the Act. According to this sub-section, the vesting provision in sub-section (1) shall not apply in respect of so much extent of private forest held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, which together with lands held by him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is applicable, does not exceed the extent of ceiling area applicable to him under S.82 of the said Act. Intention to cultivate has been spoken to by P.Ws.I and 2 and therefore that ingredient is satisfied. That together with the disputed land, the other lands held by the appellants do not exceed the extent of ceiling area applicable to them under S.82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is also spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 and not rebutted on behalf of the respondents. In fact, in this regard, there is no specific denial in the counter. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is correct. 4. Relief under S.3(3) has been denied only on the ground that the appellants have not been proved to be holding the land under a valid registered document of title executed before 10-5-1971. The land originally belonged to their tharvad and they obtained the land only under Ext.A2 final decree passed by a competent court on 3-7-1966. The final decree was passed prior to 10-5-1971. The final decree can certainly be taken to be a document of title for the purpose of S.3(3) of the Act. There could be no doubt that the document of title is a valid one. The only question for consideration is whether the final decree could be regarded as a registered document of title. 5. In M.F.A. No. 177 of 1980 (1986 KLT. 549), we had occasion to consider whether sale certificate issued by a civil court would fall within the description "registered document" for the purpose of S.3(3) of the Act. Neither the Registration Act, 1908, nor any other law requires a sale certificate to be presented for registration before a competent registering authority in the same manner as private documents are to be presented. S.89(2) of the Registration Act requires every court granting certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure to send a copy of such certificate to the Registering Officer and further requires such officer to file the copy in Book No.1. S.51 (2) of the Registration Act states that in Book No.1 shall be entered or filed all documents or memoranda registered under S.17,18 and 89 which relate to immovable property, and are not wills. In that appeal, we held that filing of the copy in Book No. 1 amounts to registration and therefore certificate of sale should be held to be a registered document for the purpose of S.3(3) of the Act. 6. In that appeal, we held that filing of the copy in Book No. 1 amounts to registration and therefore certificate of sale should be held to be a registered document for the purpose of S.3(3) of the Act. 6. In our view, the same principle would apply to a final decree in a partition suit. There is no provision in the Registration Act requiring a copy of the final decree to be forwarded to the Registering Authority or requiring that Authority to file a copy of the decree in Book No. 1. Of course, a final decree is not compulsorily registerable under S.17 of the Registration Act. R.237(2) of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice states, inter alia, that a copy of the final decree in a partition suit shall be sent to the Sub-Registrar within whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situate. S.69 of the Registration Act empowers the Inspector General of Registration to frame rules. The Inspector General of Registration has framed Rules. R.16 requires that a file book shall be maintained in each registration office corresponding with Book No. 1. Clause (c) of R.16 requires that in this book shall be filed copies of certificates and orders and instruments received under S.89 and also under the Code of Civil Procedure and copies of final decree under the Civil Rules of Practice. 7. The above provisions make it clear that a copy of the final decree in a partition suit has to be forwarded by the civil court to the appropriate Registering Authority and the Registering Authority has to file the copy in the file book corresponding to Book No 1. S.89 of the Registration Act may not, in terms, apply to such a document. The word "registration" is not defined in the Act. S.3 (49) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 states that "registered" used with reference to a document shall mean "registered in India under the law for the time being in force for the registration of documents". In Chambers' loth Century Dictionary, New Edn., the word "register" is explained as "a written record or official list regularly kept; the book containing such record; an entry in it". The word "registration" is explained as "an entry in a register"; "to enter or cause to be entered in a register; to record; to indicate; to put on record". In Chambers' loth Century Dictionary, New Edn., the word "register" is explained as "a written record or official list regularly kept; the book containing such record; an entry in it". The word "registration" is explained as "an entry in a register"; "to enter or cause to be entered in a register; to record; to indicate; to put on record". The word "registered" is explained as "recorded, entered or enrolled". In any view of the case, we are of opinion that the procedure by which a copy of the final decree is forwarded to the Registering Authority and is filed in Book No.1 amounts to registration in the eyes of law. We therefore hold that the final decree in a partition suit is a registered document. 8. Learned Government Pleader contended that a final decree cannot be said to be a document "executed". "Executed" means only something done or completed. (See Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14th Edn.) page 387). Meanings for the "execution" are: "bring into existence; to make valid by signing". Going by the ordinary meaning attached to the word "executed", it can be said that a final decree passed under the signature and seal of a court is a document "executed", at least for the limited purpose of S.3(3) of the Act. We are not persuaded to hold that the provision of law which grants exemption in relation to land acquired by a registered sale deed, a registered mortgage deed or a registered lease deed, cannot apply to land obtained under a valid final decree for partition. We therefore hold that the land in dispute is exempt from vesting by virtue of S.3(3) of the Act. The impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the appellants before the Forest Tribunal is allowed. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their costs. Allowed.