Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1457 (AP)

S. Renuka (Died) v. District Registrar

2023-11-16

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2023
ORDER Subba Reddy Satti, J. - The writ petition is filed to declare the action of 2nd respondent in receiving the document represented by the 4th respondent without the knowledge of the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by the 1st respondent under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') and processing the document for registration, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 32 (a), 58, 59 and 60 of the Act as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Initially, the deceased 1st petitioner filed the writ petition. Pending the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and the petitioners 2 and 3 came on record as legal representatives. 3. a) In the affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that deceased 1st petitioner is the owner of house bearing No.5-35 admeasuring 1050 SFT together with land an extent of 141.76 square yards and another house with built up area of 403 SFT together with land an extent of 44.77 square yards situated in S.No.794/4. Deceased 1st petitioner is also owner of land admeasuring 99.66 square yards in S.No.796/2. The 4th respondent by creating forged agreement of sale filed suit O.S.No.245 of 2018 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati seeking specific performance of agreement of contract. In the suit, he filed I.A.No.521 of 2018 to restrain the defendant from alienating the schedule property and the Civil Court granted interim injunction on 01.10.2018. b) The 4th respondent by giving wrong information took the deceased 1st petitioner to the office of 2nd respondent and obtained signatures and thumb impressions. On noticing the same, she in turn, informed to 2nd respondent about the fraud played by the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent not inclined to process the sale deed and accordingly, passed refusal order dated 21.12.2018 in the pending document No.1140 of 2018. c) The 4th respondent filed Appeal No.1 of 2019 before the 1st respondent under Section 72 of the Act. The deceased 1st petitioner appeared before the authority and engaged an advocate. Learned counsel filed vakalat and counter and on 12.03.2019, the advocate for the petitioner sought time to file papers, however, on 13.03.2019, the 1st respondent passed the order allowing the appeal and directed the 2nd respondent to register the document if it is presented within 30 days from the date of order. Learned counsel filed vakalat and counter and on 12.03.2019, the advocate for the petitioner sought time to file papers, however, on 13.03.2019, the 1st respondent passed the order allowing the appeal and directed the 2nd respondent to register the document if it is presented within 30 days from the date of order. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.3625 of 2019 and the Court suspended the proceedings of 1st respondent dated 13.03.2019. The 1st respondent allowed the appeal on 13.03.2019. The 4th respondent resubmitted the document before the 2nd respondent on 14.03.2019. The 2nd respondent processed the document, registered and released the document on 16.03.2019. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed. 4. a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2nd respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that sale deed dated 12.11.2018 executed by deceased 1st petitioner in favour of 4th respondent in respect of house bearing No.5-35 admeasuring 1050 SFT with an extent of 141.76 square yards and another house with built up area of 403 SFT with land an extent of 44.77 square yards situated in S.No.794/4 of Thukivakam village, Renigunta Mandal and also an extent of 99.66 square yards in S.No.796/2 of the same village. Respondent received the said document and kept the same pending for scrutiny by assigning P.No.1140 of 2018. Upon scrutiny, it was found that injunction was granted by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati in I.A.No.521 of 2018 in O.S.No.245 of 2018 prohibiting alienation, is pending. b) As per the Standing Order 219 (b) of Registration Manual part-II the registering officer is estopped from going ahead with the registration, in case of injunction of restraining alienation. Accordingly, 3rd respondent passed the order dated 21.12.2018 under Section 71 of the Act. The 4th respondent filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the 1st respondent on 03.01.2019 and the petitioner filed objections. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on 13.03.2019 directing the 2nd respondent to register the document, if it is presented within 30 days. The 4th respondent represented the sale deed on 14.03.2019, and after scrutiny the document was registered and released vide document No.1683 of 2019 on 16.03.2019. 3rd Respondent followed the procedure under Section 32 (a) of the Act and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The 4th respondent represented the sale deed on 14.03.2019, and after scrutiny the document was registered and released vide document No.1683 of 2019 on 16.03.2019. 3rd Respondent followed the procedure under Section 32 (a) of the Act and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri B.Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for 4th respondent. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that after the 1st respondent allowed the appeal, the 2nd respondent ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Act, as mandated under Section 72(2) of the Act and Rules 57 and 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Rules'). He would also submit that 2nd respondent since failed to follow the procedure, registration of document is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for 4th respondent, per contra, would submit that 2nd respondent followed the procedure, registered and released the document. He would also submit that deceased 1st petitioner along with 2nd petitioner filed suit O.S.No.12 of 2019 for declaration of title and to declare that unregistered sale deed dated 12.11.2018 in favour of defendant (4th respondent herein), pursuant to forged agreement of sale dated 10.05.2012 as sham and nominal etc. and the same is pending. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that 2nd respondent followed the procedure in registering the document and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Now, the point for consideration is Whether the 2nd respondent followed the procedure while entertaining registration and release of document No.1683 of 2019 dated 14.03.2019? 10. As seen from the pleadings and material available on record, there is no dispute that deceased 1st petitioner is the owner of property. The 4th respondent filed suit O.S.No.245 of 2018 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati against deceased 1st petitioner for specific performance of agreement of contract. I.A.No.521 of 2018 was filed seeking injunction. An interim injunction was granted on 01.10.2018. The sale deed executed by deceased 1st petitioner on 12.11.2018 was presented before the 2nd respondent for registration. 11. The document was admitted and the same was kept pending vide P.No.1140 of 2018 dated 12.11.2018. I.A.No.521 of 2018 was filed seeking injunction. An interim injunction was granted on 01.10.2018. The sale deed executed by deceased 1st petitioner on 12.11.2018 was presented before the 2nd respondent for registration. 11. The document was admitted and the same was kept pending vide P.No.1140 of 2018 dated 12.11.2018. Thereafter on 20.12.2018 the deceased 1st petitioner submitted objections for registration of the document, however, by that time, the requirements under the Act regarding the admission of document were complied with. The document was kept pending, in view of injunction granted by the civil Court as per Standing Order 219 (b) of Registration Manual Part-II. In fact, the 2nd respondent passed the refusal order dated 21.12.2018 in view of Standing Order 219 (b). 12. Standing Order 219 (b) of Registration Manual Part-II reads as follows:- 'If the High Court or any other civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders brought to the notice of the registering officer or served on the registering officer, the registering officer is estopped from going ahead with the registration.' 13. Case on hand, by that time when the document was presented for registration on 12.11.2018, interim injunction granted in I.A.No.521 of 2018 dated 01.10.2018 was subsisting. In view of the same, 2nd respondent declined to register the document and passed refusal order. After passing of order by 2nd respondent, 4th respondent, who instituted suit O.S.No.245 of 2018, withdrew the suit by filing memo, as a result, the suit was dismissed on 26.12.2018. 14. After dismissal of the suit, the 2nd respondent filed appeal before the 1st respondent under Section 72 of the Act. Before the 1st respondent, deceased 1st petitioner filed various objections and pleaded forgery. The 1st respondent by order dated 13.03.2019 allowed the appeal. In the order, 1st respondent observed that objections of deceased 1st petitioner about getting her signatures forcibly, non-receipt of sale consideration and genuineness of sale agreement dated 10.05.2012 cannot be considered by the authority, since the requirements relating to admission of execution of sale deed were completed before the Sub Registrar on 12.11.2018 itself. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that the 4th respondent filed appeal under Section 72 of the Act, but not under Section 73 of the Act. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that the 4th respondent filed appeal under Section 72 of the Act, but not under Section 73 of the Act. Section 72 of the Act deals with a situation where the Sub Registrar refuse to admit the document on the ground other than denial of execution. Section 72 (2) of the Act adumbrates that if the appellate authority directs the document to be registered and the document is duly presented for registration within 30 days, the Sub Registrar shall obey the same, and thereon shall, so far as may be practicable, follow the procedure prescribed in Sections 58, 59 and 60. Section 73 of the Act deals with the situation, where the Sub Registrar refuses to register the document on the ground that any person by whom it purports to be executed or his representative or assign, denies its execution. 16. Part-XI of the Registration Act deals with the duties and powers of the Registering Officers. It consists of (A) to (E). Part-XI (B) deals with the procedure on admitting to registration. On any document admitted to registration, the Registering Officer shall endorse as to signature and every person executing the document, representative or assignee or agent. Registering Officer also must endorse any payment of money or delivery of goods made in the presence of Registering Officer in reference to the execution of document and any admission of receipt of consideration, in whole or in part, made in his etc. Section 58 (2) of the Act, makes it clear that if any person admitting the execution of a document refuses to endorse the same, the Registering Officer shall nevertheless register it, but shall at the same time endorse a note of such refusal. 17. Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 reads thus: '58. Section 58 (2) of the Act, makes it clear that if any person admitting the execution of a document refuses to endorse the same, the Registering Officer shall nevertheless register it, but shall at the same time endorse a note of such refusal. 17. Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 reads thus: '58. It forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below: (a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be; (b) that the document is forged; (c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity; (d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or (e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.' 18. As seen from Rule 58, the Registering Officer is not obligated to enquire into the validity of the document or to attend to any written or verbal protest against such registration. The duty of the Registering Officer is to verify whether the parties appeared before the authority are proper or not; that document is forged and that the person executing the document is not dead as alleged by the party applying for registration etc. 19. Case at hand as stated supra, the deceased 1st petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent-Sub Registrar on 12.11.2018 and gave her photograph and thumb impressions through biometrics and signed on endorsement in the presence of two identifying witnesses in token of her admission to execution. The Sub Registrar reported the same to the District Registrar as part of remarks and in the order passed by 1st respondent it was referred to. Thus, the procedure contemplated under Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Act was complied with. 20. In the first instance, the document was not registered in view of injunction granted by the civil Court. Thus, the procedure contemplated under Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Act was complied with. 20. In the first instance, the document was not registered in view of injunction granted by the civil Court. After the appeal was allowed by 1st respondent, the document was resubmitted and the 2nd respondent by following the procedure registered and released the document. 21. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that after the appeal was allowed, when the document was presented by 4th respondent, the Sub Registrar must follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Act and cause enquiry qua execution of document falls to ground. The words employed in Section 72 (2) of the Act 'so far as may be practicable', in the opinion of this Court, since 2nd respondent followed the procedure in the first instance while admitting the document, the authority need not resort to the procedure again. Since the procedure mandated under the Act was followed this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 22. The deceased 1st petitioner along with 2nd petitioner filed suit O.S.No.12 of 2019 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati for declaration of title and other reliefs. Since the comprehensive suit is pending, the observations made by this Court, if any, will not come in the way of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati in disposal of the said suit. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.