AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Liberhan, J.—Plaintiff brought a suit u/s 77 of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') and sought a direction to the Registrar for registering the documents presented, for registration.
The plaintiff purchased a plot measuring 5 acres for a consideration of Rs. 2, 13, 919, 52 Ps from the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Haryana. On payment of the whole amount a sale-deed was alleged to have been executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 21,400/ by the Administrator New Mandi Township. The plaintiff as well as the attesting witnesses signed the sale deed on 26th December, 1974. The defendant (Administrator) signed the same on J4tb February, 1975 and asked the plaintiff to present the same before the Sub Registrar for its registration. The sale deed was not presented for its registration before the registrar, as it was found that the same had not been executed "for and on behalf of the Governor of Haryana". The Administrator himself had no right, title and interest in the property to convey to the plaintiff. It was executed in violation of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. On 7th June, 1976 the Administrator agreed to add the words "for and on behalf of Governor of Haryana" under his signatures, thus agreed to transfer the property on their behalf and signing as such. These words were added on 1st July, 1976 and it was presented for registration before the Registrar on 22nd July, 1976. He refused to register the same on the ground that the sale-deed was executed on 26th December, 1974 and was presented for registration after a lapse of more than 4 months, the same cannot be registered. The plaintiff averred that the sale deed should be deemed to have been executed on 7th June, 1976 when it was expressed that the transfer was being effected "for and on behalf of the Governor of Haryana" and that would only be the date for the execution of the deed The deed was presented for registration within 4 months from this date, hence the registration of the same could not be refused.
The trial Court found that the deed stands executed on 26th December, 1974 when the plaintiff and the attesting witnesses signed the same. The addition of the words ''for and on behalf of the Governor" would not postpone the date of the execution. The deed was not presented for registration within the prescribed lime. The order of the Registrar was valid. It was further found that two years had elapsed since the purchase of the stamp fee, the stamp fee could not be ordered to be refunded. The suit was dismissed.
The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the signatures by the Government officials mean that the same were appended in exercise of the powers vested in him. The signatures appended on the sale deed would be deemed to have been made on behalf of the Governor of Haryana. It was observed that even in the absence of words added, it would be deemed to have been executed validly and would pass a valid title to the transferee, and it was not presented within the time prescribed by Sections 23 and 25 of the Act, the Registrar was justified in refusing to register the same.
The only question raised is, that sale-deed would be deemed to have been executed on 1-7-76. It was presented for registration, when the legal and valid deed had been executed, which passed on a valid title to the plaintiff, it is from the date of execution of a valid document that the limitation for its presentation for registration was to commence.
6 The scheme of the Act is to consolidate she Jaw relating to registration and to provide for the establishment of its registration It lays down what documents require compulsory registration. Section 23 of the Act provides the time for presenting the documents for registration. It provides limitation for getting a document registered Section 25 provides for condonation of delay in presenting documents for registration. Section 34 specifically provides for that enquiry, chat can be held before the registration by the Registering Officer.
The object of the Act as envisaged was not to guarantee the geneuiness of the instruments but to provide record which in times to come will provide (i) information with respect to titles; (ii) perpetuate documents of legal importance; (iii) to protect the innocent transferees from being defauded, and to check fabrication of the documents of titles and its forgery and to minimise the possibility of frauds Section 32 provides the persons who can present the document for registration :--
"32. 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 person, or
(c) by the agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned."
Section 34 of the Act provides the powers of the Registrar :-
34.(1) Subject to the provisions in this Part and in Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88, and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representative, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26;
Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, incases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable u/s 25, the document may be registered
(2) Appearences under sub section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon :
(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by when it purports to have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document ; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assignor agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear;
(4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to copies or orders ;
The reading of the sections leads to an inference, that a deed duly and validly executed can be presented for registration within 4 months from the date of its execution to the Registrar who being satisfied that it was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and further satisfied with respect to the identity of the executent appearing before him and in case of the representative appearing for the executant, he would satisfy himself whether the said representative had a right to do so, shall register the document in case, on account of unavoidable accident or on account of urgent necessity, it had Dot been presented within the prescribed period and the delay had not exceeded four months, he would register the document on payment of fine.
It had been judicially recognised that a document means any writing or printing etc. capable of being evidenced.
The sale can be effected of an immovable property in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Section 54 of it envisages that the sale of immovable property of value of more than Rs. 100/- can be effected by a instrument duly executed and registered. Section 54 reads as under :-
"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Such transfer, in the case of tangible Immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intengible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument
In the case of tangible Immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible Immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
A contract for the sale of Immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties
It docs not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
The deed though not defined under the Registration Act but as judicially recognised, means a writing on a paper scaled and delivered, whereby an interest or right or property passes, or an obligation binding on some one person is created, or which is affirmance of some act, whereby an interest, right or property has passed. It had been as observed in Phimpson on Evidence Act and Norton on Deed 2nd Evidion.
In Section 23 terminus quo for presentation of the document for registration is four months from the date of its execution. The execution has not been defined in the Act. Execution, as stated in the Oxford Dictionary means "due performance of all formalities as signing, sealing etc to give validity to a legal instrument."
The execution shall mean that the deed was executed with all the formalities necessary for its completion It has to be a valid execution and not merely signing of the document It means something more than mere writing on a document and signing. Execution include due execution i.e. it includes all facts which would be necessary in order to establish due execution. It has been observed in Phimpson on Evidence chat execution of a document containing certain clauses will imply the knowledge of its content. Signatures must be intended to govern and authenticate every material part of the instrument. Execution by an unauthorised person is void. Though the word ''execution'' has not been defined in she statute but it has been accepted that execution consists in signing a document which has been written, read over and understood, and it does not mean merely signing a name upon blank paper-sheet. Execution where applied to document means the last Act or the series of acts necessary to complete it. Thus the execution of the deed is signing by the parties, the attesting by the witnesses and the delivery of the same. The execution includes a process which is to be gone through to complete a document. All the formalities necessary for the validity of a legal Act have to complete or give validity to by performing what law requires to be done as by signing, sealing etc. It means some thing more than signed.
Counsel for the appellant relied upon Puran Chand Nahatta v. Monmothe Nath Mukerise and Ors. A. I. R. 1928 P. C. 38. wherein it has been held :-
"By Section 35, Registration Act, registration is directed when certain parsons have appeared have been duly identified, and have admitted the execution of the document propounded and the necessary persons are "the persons executing the document " The appellant contends that in these words executing means and means only "actually signing". Their Lordships cannot accept this. A document is executed, when those who take benefits and obligations under it have put or have caused to be put their names to it. Personal signature is not required and another person, duly authorised, may by writing the name of the party executing, bring about his valid execution, and put him under the obligations involved Hence the words "person executing" in the Act cannot be read merely as "person signing". They mean something more, namely the person, who by a valid execution eaters into obligation under the instrument "
The document was signed on 14th February, 1975 by the Administrator, sew Mandi Township, and it was to be a sale deed in the name of the Governor of Haryana. It was neither in the name of Governor of Haryana nor was signed on his behalf hence it was a void document. It could not be stated to be a sale deed executed in accordance with Article 299 of the Constitution which reads as under :-
"All contracts made in the exercise of the Executive power of a State shall be expressed to be made by the Governor of the State as the case may be, and all such contracts and all assurances of property made in the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise "
I find support for the above said observation from Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria Vs. Union of India (UOI), , which reads as under :-
"It is in the interest of the public that the question whether a binding contact has been made between the State and a private individual should not be left open to dispute and litigation and that is why the legislature appears to have made a provision that the contract must be in writing and must on its lace show that it is executed for and on behalf of the head of the State and in the manner prescribed. The whole aim and object of the legislature in conferring powers upon the head of the State would be defeated if in the case of a contract which is in form ambiguous, disputes are permitted to be raised whether the contract was intended to be made for and on behalf of the State or on behalf of the person making the contract. This consideration by itself would be sufficient to imply a prohibition against a contract being effectively made otherwise than in the manner prescribed. It is true that in some cases, hardship may result to a person not conversant with the law who enters into a contract in a form other than the one prescribed by law It also happens that the Government contracts are sometimes made in disregard of the forms prescribed, but that would not in our judgment be a ground for holding that departure from a provision which is mandatory and at the same time salutary may be permitted."
The valid title could only pass by the defendant if be had signed the said document as the person signing on behalf of the State Governor in the name of the Governor.
Though the person authorised to sign on behalf of Governor was duly authorised but in the absence of the words indicating that he was signing on his behalf it cannot be presumed that he was signing on behalf of the Governor. A person may be having dual capacity and until and unless he executes the documents in the requisite capacity and it is so shown in the document, it cannot be presumed that the person executing the document had the authority to do so and was executing in that capacity
In view of the undisputed fact that a valid document legally enforceable had come into existence for the purpose of the passing of valid title only on 1-7-76 the deed would be deemed to have been executed on 1st July, 1976 Although a document is presumed to have been executed on the date is bears, but where there is no date or the date does not reflect the true date its valid execution the same may be proved. Admittedly the valid execution of the document was complete only on 1st July, 1976, consequently the date for execution shall be presumed to be 1st July, 1976. Thus the period provided for presenting the document for registration shall commence from 1st July, 1976, counting from the date, it was presented within four months i e. the period of limitation provided for its registration.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the judgments and decree of the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant-Registrar is directed to register the documents within 90 days No order as to costs.