ORDER : Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AK Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision under Section 115 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2015 passed in Title Appeal No.08/2014 whereby the said appeal was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2014 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit No.52/2012. 3. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that the perusal of the plaint shows that the suit filed by the plaintiff was a suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit premises; for declaration that the defendant is a defaulter in respect of the suit premises; for declaration that the construction undertaken by the defendant in the suit property is illegal and unauthorized; for declaration that the Sale Deed No.823/1173 dated 03.05.2007 of Sub-Registry office, Jorhat is not in respect to the suit property and was not executed by the husband of the plaintiff No.1 Late (Dr) Shah Alom and is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the Sale Deed does not convey any right, title and interest over the suit property to the defendant; for recovery of arrear rent of Rs.16,000/-from the defendant; for eviction of the defendant from the suit property; for compensation @ Rs.2000/-from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of khas and vacant possession by the plaintiff; for permanent injunction; for mandatory injunction and other reliefs. Therefore, upon the perusal of the plaint of the suit and the relief sought for, it would be seen that it is not only a suit for eviction of the defendant but it is also a suit wherein the right title and interest have been claimed in respect to the suit property as well as for declaration that the sale deed upon which the defendant claims right over the suit property be declared as not binding upon the plaintiffs and the defendant does not have any right title and interest on the suit property. The said suit was apparently decreed by the trial Court whereby the plaintiffs right title and interest over the suit land was declared and further holding that the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the suit premises. The said suit was apparently decreed by the trial Court whereby the plaintiffs right title and interest over the suit land was declared and further holding that the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the suit premises. The trial further vide the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2015 declared that the registered sale deed bearing No.823/1173 dated 03.05.2007 was void and not binding upon the plaintiff and the sale deed does not confer any right, title and interest upon the defendant and the defendant is a defaulter. It was also held that the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises and the plaintiffs are entitled to arrear rent from the defendant from the month of January, 2012 and also for compensation @2,000/-per month till recovery of khas and vacant possession of the suit land and the premises. Further to that, the plaintiffs were also held entitled to be put in khas and vacant possession of the suit land and the premises in due course of law and the defendants were injuncted from disturbing the peaceful possession of the suit land of the plaintiffs. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 07.06.2014 passed in Title Suit No.52/2012, the defendant as appellant preferred an appeal which was before the Court of the Additional District Judge at Jorhat and registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.08/2014. The First Appellate Court vide the judgment and order dated 24.04.2015 dismissed the appeal thereby upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the instant proceedings have been initiated under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2015 passed in Title Appeal No.08/2014. 5. This Court vide an order dated 21.08.2015 had admitted the instant petition and have called for the records and stayed the eviction decree dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit No.52/2012. The matter came up before this Court on 27.06.2022 for hearing. 6. 5. This Court vide an order dated 21.08.2015 had admitted the instant petition and have called for the records and stayed the eviction decree dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit No.52/2012. The matter came up before this Court on 27.06.2022 for hearing. 6. During the course of hearing, a question arose as to whether the revision application would be maintainable taking into consideration that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a suit amongst others a suit seeking declaration of right title and interest, recovery of khas possession as well as for declaration that the sale deed was not binding upon the plaintiffs and for declaration that the defendants did not acquire any right on the basis of the said sale deed which have been declared so by the trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. 7. On the said date in view of the said question having arisen, the matter stood adjourned and thereafter the matter was listed on 06.09.2022 before this Court. On the said date, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is filing an application for conversion of the revision application to second appeal taking into consideration that the question of title is involved in the said proceedings. Accordingly the matter has been listed today for further consideration. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. PJ Saikia, drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. Dwarka Prasad reported in AIR 2005 MP 40 and Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar & Bros and Anr reported in (1998) 6 SCC 748 submitted that the revision application filed under Section 115 of the Code can be converted to a proceeding under Section 100 of the Code provided there is a substantial question involved in the said proceedings. He further submitted that by drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd Vs. He further submitted that by drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1998) 3 SCC 540 that taking into consideration that the revision petition has been admitted as far back as in the year 2015, it would not be in the interest of justice to dismiss the same thereby allowing the petitioner again to file an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. 9. Mr. Goswami, on the other hand, submits that though the judgment permits conversion but such conversion is only permissible if a substantial question of law is involved in the proceedings. He submits, however, that in the instant case, the question of conversion does not arise taking into account that there is no substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal. 10. To appreciate the said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, it would be apposite to take note of the further submission made by Mr. PJ Saikia, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is a substantial question of law involved in the instant proceedings and proposed that “Whether the Courts below were justified in treating Section 32 A of the Registration Act, 1908 as mandatory and thereby was justified in holding that the sale deed bearing deed No.823/1173 dated 03.05.2007 was void and not binding upon the plaintiffs?” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908 is a procedural provision which needs to be followed by the Revenue Authority and non adherence to Section 32A of the Act of 1908 by the Revenue Authorities would not render a validly executed deed of sale to be void. He submitted that in a recent judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of G. Arjunan vs. P. Dhanam rendered in Second Appeal No.957/2019 dated 04.02.2022, the Madras High Court had the occasion of dealing with Section 32A of the Act of 1908. He submitted that in a recent judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of G. Arjunan vs. P. Dhanam rendered in Second Appeal No.957/2019 dated 04.02.2022, the Madras High Court had the occasion of dealing with Section 32A of the Act of 1908. Drawing the attention of this court to paragraph 24, 25 and 26, the learned senior counsel submitted that Section 32A of the Act of 1908, imposes an obligation upon the Registering Authority to seek compliance but if the Registering Authority registers the document without complying to Section 32A by virtue of Section 17 of the Act of 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the title in respect to the properties vest upon the purchaser. 12. For the purpose of deciding the said contention, which would be relevant for deciding as to whether a question of law arises in terms with Section 100 (3) of the Code, it would be relevant to take note of Section 32A of the Act of 1908. It is relevant to note that Section 32A was brought in by The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001. The said Section 32A of the Act of 1908 being relevant is quoted herein below: “32A. Compulsory affixing of photograph, etc.—Every person presenting any document at the proper registration office under Section 32 shall affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document: Provided that where such document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the passport size photograph and fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the document shall also be affixed to the document.” 13. The heading of the said Section uses the words “Compulsory affixing of photographs, etc”. It stipulates that every person presenting any document at the proper Registration Office under Section 32 shall affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document. The proviso to the said Section stipulates that where such document relates to transfer of ownership of an immovable property, the Passport size photograph and the fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the document shall also be affixed to the do document. The proviso to the said Section stipulates that where such document relates to transfer of ownership of an immovable property, the Passport size photograph and the fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the document shall also be affixed to the do document. Therefore, a reading of the said Section on the face of it shows that an obligation is cast upon the buyer as well as the seller who presents the document at the proper Registration Office to affix their Passport size photograph and fingerprints to the documents. 14. At this stage, if this court further takes into consideration Section 32 of the Act of 1908, it would show as to who are the persons who can present the document for registration, Section 32 being relevant is quoted herein below: 32. Persons to present documents for registration.—Except in the cases mentioned in [Sections 31, 88 and 89], every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office,— (a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.” 15. Sub clauses (a), (b), (c) of Section 32 as quoted herein above would show that the document has to be presented by some person executing or claiming under the same or in case of a copy of a decree or order claiming under the decree or order or by the representative or assign of such a person or by the agents of such a person, representatives or assign, duly authorised by the Power of Attorney executed and authenticated in the manner hereinafter mentioned. Therefore a conjoint reading of Section 32 with Section 32A of the Act of 1908 would show that the burden is imposed upon the persons mentioned in Section 32 in the case of a document relating to transfer of ownership of the immovable property to affix the passport size photograph and fingerprint of each buyer and seller of such property as mentioned in the document. 16. 16. At this stage it is also relevant to take note of Section 52 of the Act of 1908 which stipulates the duties of the Registering Officer when the document is presented. Section 52 being relevant is quoted herein below: 52. Duties of registering officers when document presented.— (1) (a) The day, hour and place of presentation, [the photographs and finger prints affixed under Section 32A,] and the signature of every person presenting a document for registration, shall be endorsed on every such document at the time of presenting it; (b) a receipt for such document shall be given by the registering officer to the person presenting the same; and (c) subject to the provisions contained in Section 62, every document admitted to registration shall without unnecessary delay be copied in the book appropriated therefor according to the order of its admission. (2) All such books shall be authenticated at such intervals and in such manner as is from time to time prescribed by the Inspector-General. 17. A perusal of Section 52 stipulates that sub clause (a) of sub-Section (1) stipulates that the day, hour and place of presentation, photographs, fingerprints affix under Section 32 A and the signatures of every person presenting a document for registration shall be endorsed on every document at the time of presenting it. Sub-clause (b) stipulates that a receipt for such document shall be given by the Registering Officer to the person presenting the same and sub-clause (c) stipulates that subject to the provisions contained in Section 62 of the Act of 1908 every document admitted to registration shall without unnecessary delay be copied in the book appropriated therefor according to the order of its admission. Therefore, a reading of Section 32, Section 32A and Section 52 would show that it is an obligation and responsibility of the persons presenting the document to affix the photograph and the fingerprints to the document and it is also a responsibility of the Registering Officer under Section 52 while accepting the said document for registration to give a receipt of such document which is in compliance to Section 52(1)(a) of the Act of 1908. 18. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the responsibility solely lies upon the Registering Authority and not upon the person presenting the document under Section 32 of the Act of 1908. 18. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the responsibility solely lies upon the Registering Authority and not upon the person presenting the document under Section 32 of the Act of 1908. It is also relevant to take note of the word “compulsory” used in Section 32A which is the legislative mandate clearly indicating the mandatory nature in which the document is proved to be registration. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of G Arjunan Vs. P.Dhanam(supra). Paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the said judgment having relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner which for the sake of convenience is quoted herein below: 24. The above Section 32A in the Registration Act was introduced by way of an amendment by Act 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001, which envisages that where a document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the passport size photograph and fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the document shall also be affixed to the document. This provision was evidently inserted to prevent impersonation of all the parties to the transaction and fraud. 25. Keeping the above enactment in mind, if we look at the present case, the Sale Agreement in question was registered on 23.02.2009, which was much after the introduction of the said amendment in Section 32A, on 24.09.2001. On scrutiny of the said document, what is seen is that of the four executants to the document viz., three sellers (joint) and one purchaser, only one passport size photograph of one of the sellers is affixed and the passport photographs of the remaining three persons, including the purchaser, namely, first respondent/plaintiff, are not affixed. Since the present transaction took place much after the introduction of the said amendment, it is mandatory to affix the passport size photographs of all the parties to the document. However, as already stated just earlier, the document in question sans the said requirement. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ex. A1, Sale Agreement, has been properly registered. Since the present transaction took place much after the introduction of the said amendment, it is mandatory to affix the passport size photographs of all the parties to the document. However, as already stated just earlier, the document in question sans the said requirement. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ex. A1, Sale Agreement, has been properly registered. When the provision makes it imperative as to the affixation of passport size photographs of all the parties to the document, this Court is at a loss to understand how the registering authority, without verifying as to the fulfillment of the said requirement, blindly proceed to register the document. When the intent of the Legislature in inserting the said provision 32-A in the Registration Act is to prevent impersonation of the parties to the transaction and fraud, the conduct of the authorities in ignoring the said provision is to be highly deprecated. This is very unfortunate. Also, it is significant to note that just because it has been held hereinabove that the document herein has not been properly registered, the transaction of the document cannot be doubted or ignored, as, in this case, the appellant/defendant has categorically admitted the signatures of his father and himself in the sale agreement and, in addition, he admitted the passport size photograph of his father also in the document. His only contention is that their signatures in the document were obtained by coercion. Were the said contention true, he would have very well defended the same by producing sufficient proof, which is, admittedly, not done. In this regard, his only stand is that he filed a police complaint, which, as could be seen by this Court, was after four years, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be accepted. 26. Because of the dereliction and lackadaisical attitude of the revenue officials in not ensuring the compliance of the requirement of Section 32A of the Registration Act, the parties to the document/contract cannot be put to disarray. This issue requires much attention at the hands of the revenue authorities. 26. Because of the dereliction and lackadaisical attitude of the revenue officials in not ensuring the compliance of the requirement of Section 32A of the Registration Act, the parties to the document/contract cannot be put to disarray. This issue requires much attention at the hands of the revenue authorities. Therefore, in order to not to recur such incidents any further, this Court directs the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, to issue strict instructions to the authorities attached to his Department throughout the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure strict compliance of the said provision without fail, and also see that any non-compliance thereof by the officials will attract severe punishment, thereby not to give an iota of scope to open a floodgate of litigations on such ground and also to avoid one party becoming a victim at the hands of another. 19. A perusal of the said paragraphs as quoted herein above with due respect to the learned Judge does not take into consideration the opening words of Section 32A of the Act of 1908 wherein it specifically mandates that “every person presenting any document under Section 32 shall.” Further to that, it is also relevant to take note of that the judgment rendered in the said case had a peculiar facts wherein the appellant therein had duly admitted his as well as his father’s signature in the sale agreement and in addition he admitted that the Passport size photograph of his father in the said document and the only contention made was that their signatures were obtained by coercion. Further to that, it is also a well settled principle of law that when a statute mandates a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be done in that manner. As already observed, the Act of 1908 imposes the obligation under Section 32 A as well as under Section 52 both on the persons mentioned in Section 32 while presenting the document for registration as well as upon the Registering Authority under Section 52 of the Act of 1908. Any deviation from the said legislative mandate would amount to legislation by this Court which is not permissible. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court respectfully differs with the judgment of the learned Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of G Arjunam Vs. Any deviation from the said legislative mandate would amount to legislation by this Court which is not permissible. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court respectfully differs with the judgment of the learned Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of G Arjunam Vs. P Dhanam (supra) on the ground that it has not taken into consideration the heading as well as the opening words of Section 32A of the Act of 1908 which is the legislative mandate. Apart from that, as already stated hereinabove, the said judgment was rendered on peculiar facts which is completely different in the instant case. 21. This Court taking into consideration the provisions of Section 32, Section 32A and Section 52 of the Act of 1908 is of the opinion that the provisions of Section 32A is a mandatory requirement and it imposes an obligation upon both the person presenting the document in terms with Section 32 of the Act of 1908 as well as also upon the Registering Officer in terms with Section 52 of the Act of 1908. Consequently therefore, the question of law so proposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken to be a substantial question of law involved in the present proceedings and consequently, sans a substantial question of law being involved in the instant proceedings the revision application cannot be converted into a second appeal. Further to that, taking into consideration that the proceedings under Section 115 of the Code is not maintainable in the facts of the instant case, the instant petition stands dismissed. 22. Send down the LCR.