MURARI LAL Vs. RAM CHARAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for parties and have gone through the records carefully.

(2.) THE only legal issue that needs to be decided in this revision is that whether registration is compulsory of sale certificate issued by a civil Court for property sold in public auction by the Court. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties argues that registration is compulsory as per provisions of Sections 17(E) and 43 of the Registration Act. The learned Counsel for the revisionist argues that registration is not necessary as per provision of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited a ruling in support of his contention viz. Judgment of Board of Revenue in Abdul Sattar v. Abdul Rashid, 1994 RJ 322. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act makes it clear that certificate of sale issued in a Court sale by public auction does not need registration. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in Smt. Shanti Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer, AIR 1991 SC 1980. Board of Revenue has also held in Abdul Sattar v. Abdul Rashid, 1994 RJ 322, that certificate of sale issued in a Court sale by public auction does not need registration.

(3.) I , therefore, find that learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra has given a just and legally correct finding and I agree with this recommendations. The Revision is allowed. The order dated 24-12-1992 of Sub-Divisional Officer, Kirwali and order dated 29-4-1992 of Tehsildar Kirwali are set aside. The mutation application of the revisionist Murari Lal is accepted and directions are issued to enter the name of Murari Lal on the disputed property. Revision allowed.