Shiv Kumar Sanghi vs Joint Sub Registrar-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Narnaul and another

Alok Singh, J.—Petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 28.08.1998 passed by Joint Sub Registrar, Narnaul, refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner having observed that plot sought to be transferred by the deed is situated at Singhana Road near �Chor Gumbaj� for which there is a dispute of ownership as well as order dated 08.09.1998, passed by Registrar, Mohindergarh at Narnaul, whereby Registrar remanded the matter to the Sub Registrar, Narnaul to decide the question of title before registration.

The sole question involved in the present case is as to whether Sub-Registrar/Joint Registrar or Registrar acting u/s 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 have jurisdiction to decide the question of title before registration of the document or in other words can they refuse registration of the document on the ground there is a dispute of ownership or petitioner is not owner of the property sought to be transferred ?

The brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner claiming himself owner in possession of 150 sq. yards situated on Singhana Road, Narnaul had executed one sale deed in favour of one Govind Ram for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/- on the stamp paper of Rs. 5625/-. Sale deed was presented for registration before respondent No. 1 Joint Sub Registrar. However, vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) he had refused to register the same saying there was a dispute of ownership. Petitioner went in appeal before the Registrar, however, vide impugned judgment Annexure P-2 had remanded the matter to the Joint Registrar to decide the question of ownership before registering the document.

Sections 34 of the Registration Act is being reproduced herein:-

Enquiry before registration by registering officer.-(1) Subject to the provisions contained 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 representatives, assigns or agents authorized 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, in cases 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) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times.

(3) The registering officer shall thereupon-

(4)(a) Enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom 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, assign or 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 of decrees or orders.

From the perusal of Section 34, it appears if a document is produced before the Registering Officer within stipulated time or within extended time on the appearance of the executant, Registering Officer shall enquire whether or not such document was executed by the alleged executant if executant admits execution of the deed so produced and his identity is proved, Registering Authority shall register the deed so produced. And if document is produced by the authorized representative or agent after satisfying his authority and identity shall register the document so produced before him. There is no provision under the Registration Act conferring jurisdiction on the Registering Authority to look into and decide the question of title before the registration of the document.

In the opinion of this Court merely by registration of the document title does not stand transferred. None can transfer better title than he himself had shall have full application if deed is registered by the person not having any title. The question as to whether vendor was having title and has transferred the title to the vendee can only be looked into by the competent court.

Learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Sham Bai & others Vs. The Registrar Rohtak and others, reported in 2011 (4) RCR 84 while dealing with Section 34 has held that Registrar after being satisfied on the points as mentioned under Sections 34 and 35 shall register the document. Yet in another case of Vaid Family Charitable Trust and another Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2011 (4) Law Herald (P&H) 3480, it was held that while registering the documents Registrar/Sub-Registrar has absolutely no jurisdiction to go into the question of title nor registration made by the Registrar can be cancelled on the point that vendor had no title to transfer the same.

Orders impugned are bad in law, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that if deed is presented for the registration now, Registering Authority shall demand stamp duty as prevailing today.

There is no dispute that ordinarily stamp duty is to be paid on the deed when deed is executed and presented for the registration. However, there is caveat to it. In the present case deed was presented before the Registering Authority on 28.08.1998. Registration was refused on the ground not sustainable in the eyes of law. Petitioner had filed appeal before the Registrar which too was disposed of on the ground non sustainable in the eyes of law. Soon after present petition was filed. Present petition took almost 14 years to reach to logical end. Now question comes as to whether petitioner should pay stamp duty as prevailing today or document is to be registered on the stamp duty prevailing/payable when deed was originally presented for the registration.

In the opinion of this Court stamp duty as per market value of the property prevailing on the date of execution and presentation of document for the registration has to be paid. Since document was executed in the year 1998 and was produced before the Registering Authority on 28.08.1998, therefore, stamp duty has to be paid as payable on 28.08.1998.

For the purpose of payment of stamp duty relevant date would not be date of agreement to sell rather would be date of execution and presentation of document before the Registering Authority for the registration.

In view of above discussion present petition is directed to be allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. Registering Authority-respondent No. 1 is directed to register the document in accordance with law forthwith.