BANASETTAPPA LALJICHIKKANNA Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order passed by the District Registrar in Registration Application No. 3 of 1962-63 and prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ directing him to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before passing orders for registration of the document.

(2.) It appears that respondent 2 presented a sale deed purported to have been executed by the petitioner for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore City. The petitioner denied having executed the document. The Sub-Registrar accepted his contention and declined to register it. Being aggrieved by that order, respondent 2 filed an application before the District Registrar under Section 73 of the India Registration Act to have the document registered. Then the District Registrar held an enquiry as required by Section 74 and passed the impugned order.

(3.) The petitioner has placed before us two grievances, viz. (1) that the finding recorded by the District Registrar does not satisfy the requirements of clause (1) of Section 74; and (2) in declining to summon the witnesses required by the petitioner to be examined during the course of the enquiry, the District Registrar has violated the rules of natural justice. There is no appearance for the respondents.