Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 546 (AP)

V. Umamaheswara Rao v. Shalk Hussaln Saheb

2003-04-08

V.V.S.RAO

body2003
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition no. 6005 of 2003 (hereinafter called, first petitioner), who claims to be owner of certain agricultural land in R. S. No. 598 of vuyyuru Village, Krishna District assails the order of second respondent dt. 27-3-2003. Be it noted, the second respondent passed the said order in an application filed by the first respondent under Section 3 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the act ). The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6006 of 2003 (hereinafter called, second petitioner) also assails similar order of even date. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The first respondent and thirty-four others purchased land in R. . S. No. 598 of vuyyuru Village from petitioners. As the Sub- register refused to register sale deeds, first respondent filed two applications before second respondent under Section 73 of the Act against order of Sub-Registrar, Vuyyuru, dated 14-2-1996 refusing to register a sale deed on the ground that execution of documents was denied by the petitioners. The second respondent took applications under section 73 of the Act on file and issued notices to various persons. On 11-4-1996 the second respondent examined these witnesses produced by the first respondent as well as petitioners and case was adjourned from time to time. In the meanwhile, first petitioner filed a suit being O. S. No. 57 of 2000 on the file of court of Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, for declaration of title and obtained order of Status quo in LA. No. 700 of 2000, which was subsequently extended from time to time. While status quo order was pending, first respondent herein filed a writ petition being w. P. No. 3531 of 2002 before this Court seeking direction to second respondent to pass appropriate orders in the applications filed by first respondent against petitioners being application Nos. 1 and 2 of 1996. This Court by order dt. 23-1-2003 directed the District registrar-II, Registration and Stamps, vijayawada, Krishna District, to dispose of the application within three months. Therefore, the Registrar having regard to evidence on record and also deposition of petitioners by impugned order allowed applications holding that Sections 19, 20, 21, 23 and 32 of the Act are complied with in the case. Accordingly, he directed the Sub-Registrar to register documents if they are duly presented in accordance with law. Therefore, the Registrar having regard to evidence on record and also deposition of petitioners by impugned order allowed applications holding that Sections 19, 20, 21, 23 and 32 of the Act are complied with in the case. Accordingly, he directed the Sub-Registrar to register documents if they are duly presented in accordance with law. The Registrar observed that all the attestors and the scribe of the documents, who are present at the time of execution of the documents spoke that petitioners executed the document, that petitioner s contention that their signatures were obtained on empty blank papers is contrary to evidence and that petitioners did not give any complaint against any person who allegedly took their signatures on empty stamp papers. Ultimately, the second respondent observed as under. The respondent deposed that he was forced to sign on empty stamp papers. On perusal of Ex. A. 1 (i. e.) Document No. P1/1996 of Sub-Registrar Office, Vuyyuru, it can be seen that the signatures of Umamaheswar rao appear at the end of the typed matter on each sheet. If he signed on stamp papers how can it be so exact that he sign on each sheet only at the end of typed matter? How can one imagine about No. of typed lines on each sheet exactly and sign there only ? This clearly proves beyond doubt that he signed exactly after the end of typed matter on each sheet, which means he has seen the contents of typed matter, understood it and signed it. In view of all the observations stated above, it is evident that the respondent is wilfully trying to evade the registration of the sale deed even though he executed the document. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, sri. M. Ratna Reddy, firstly contends that the first respondent obtained order from this Court by suppressing the fact of suit filed by first petitioner. He nextly contends that petitioners were not given adequate opportunity though they were present to cross-examine witnesses. He also submits that the orders passed by the second respondent are perverse, in that, though petitioners raised a number of contentions they were not adverted to. ( 4 ) INSOFAR as first contention is concerned, this Court did not adjudicate inter se rights of petitioners on one hand and first respondent on the other. He also submits that the orders passed by the second respondent are perverse, in that, though petitioners raised a number of contentions they were not adverted to. ( 4 ) INSOFAR as first contention is concerned, this Court did not adjudicate inter se rights of petitioners on one hand and first respondent on the other. This Court having regard to provisions of Sections 73, 74 and 75 of the act merely directed the District Registrar to adjudicate Application Nos. 1 and 2 of 1996 expedltiously within three months. Even if the first respondent suppressed pendency of the suit, the same does not in any manner render the order passed by this Court inequitable. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as second contention is concerned, a reading of the impugned order would show that the petitioners themselves were examined and they gave their depositions. They stated that their signature were obtained on blank papers. This aspect of the matter was clearly considered. The attestors, the document writer, and others who are present at the time of execution merely stated that petitioner executed the documents. When the petitioner allegedly were present throughout the enquiry on different dates, nothing prevented them to raise objection, before the District Registrar or approach appropriate authority complaining that they were not given adequate opportunity. Instead, first petitioner filed suit for declaration of title and obtained order of status quo. All these factors belie the submission that petitioners were not given adequate opportunity. Indeed, when order of status quo in la. No. 700 of 2000 was produced before the District Registrar, the Registrar promptly adjourned the matter. This shows that the district Registrar adhered to principles of fairness. ( 6 ) INSOFAR as third submission is concerned, the same is devoid of any merit. Section 73 of the Act enables a person who presents a document for registration, and registration of document is rejected/refused by the Sub-Registrar on the ground that the person purported to have executed denies such execution, the aggrieved party can file application before the Registrar in order to establish his right to have a document registered. Under Section 75 (4) of the Act the District Registrar is competent to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses and compel to give evidence as if he were a Civil Court. Under Section 75 (4) of the Act the District Registrar is competent to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses and compel to give evidence as if he were a Civil Court. After doing so, under Section 75 (1) of the Act if the Registrar finds that the document has been executed and that the said requirements have been complied with, he shall order the document to be registered. In the background of this legal position, one thing is very clear that law does not stipulate method and manner or nature of enquiry to be made by the district Registrar into applications under section 73 (1) of the Act before passing order under Section 75 (1) of the Act. To my mind enquiry is required to be made having regard to principles of reasonableness, namely, eschewing irrelevancies and considering relevant factors. When a person alleges that document was indeed executed, best evidence would be that of a document writer/ scribe or attesting witnesses or vendee or his associates who are normally present when the document is executed. It is not the case of petitioners that signatures of petitioners were obtained in a secluded place in secrecy. He did not even deny in the affidavit about presence or otherwise of various persons who deposed before the District Registrar. This shows that the complaint that the petitioners were not given adequate opportunity is baseless. ( 7 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.