MUDUNURI GOPALARAJU Vs. YANNABATHULA VENKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by M. Gopala Raju, the plaintiff. He laid the suit for possession of Ac. 0.49 cents in S. Nos. 44/6 and 7 of Malikipuram village. His case was, he obtained a document (Ex. A1) in his favor and got the document executed on 8/09/1959 by the owner of the land, Nalli Lazar, who was paid the consideration of Rs. 2,000.00. When he could not get the document registered at the Sub-Registrants Office, got it compulsorily registered, as a result of the order of the appellate authority, the District registrar, on 9/03/1960. In the suit, he sought for declaration of title of the B1 land. This suit was resisted mainly by the 2nd defendant, Y. Yenkanna. Nalli Lazar remained ex parte. Venkanna averred, he obtained an agreement to sell on 20/08/1959 and earlier to the deed, he was tenant of the owner and on 10/09/1959 and obtained a sale deed, Ex. B7 and got it registered. Among the several issues, the relevant issue in the suit for this appeal was whether the order of the District registrar for compulsory registration which resulted in the registration of the document, Ex. A 1/03/1960 is void, for the fraud played by him to issue notices to Mlikipuram village address when Venkanna was residing at vijayawada to his knowledge. This fraud resulted in non service of notices and Venkanna was declared ex parte and document, Ex A1 was registered. The appellate Judge considered this fact and held :thus, Ex A1 had not been presented for registration by the first defendant and he had never appeared before in Sub registrar or the District Registrar. In the proceeding for compulsory registration, the plaintiff had fraudulently informed the Sub Registrar as well as the District Registrar that the first defendants was residing in the house of Manne Subbanna at Malikipuram, whereas to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the first defendant had been residing at vijayawada since one year prior to the date of Ex. A1. He had procured and endorsement that the notices had been served by affixture to a house as if the first defendant had been residing in that house. Consequently, the District Registrar had proceeded ex parte and had ordered the registration of Ex. A1. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff had played fraud upon the Sub Registrar and the District Registrar who would not have proceeded ex parte against the first defendant, had they known that the first defendant was not residing at the address furnished by the plaintiff.

(2.) The above finding are challenged in the Second Appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard referred to Section 87 of the Indian registration Act 16/1908 and argued notwithstanding fraud in registration of Ex. A1, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land, for he argued the word, " procedure" contained in Section 87 would protect the fraud perpetrated by the plaintiff. In the words of the learned counsel, the issuance of notices to Venkanna at Malikkapuram village, even if it should be snorted as fraud at the instance of the plaintiff, registration of Ex. A1 document is proper and cannot be assailed under Section 87 of the Act 16/1908 and relied on Muhammad Ewaz v. Biri Lal (1877) ILR 1 ALL 465; Ma Pwa May v. Sr. M. M. A. Chettiar Firm, AIR 1929 PC 279. We cannot accede to the contention raised in this regard. We understand the law to be if the District Registrar inadvertently or unconsciously adopts a procedure which results in registration of a document, Section 87 protects such a document. There is an elaborate discussion as to jurisdiction in this regard in which has no relevance on the facts of the case. Now in the instant case, but for fraud played by the plaintiff, the issue would have taken a different conplexion. On the facts, can it be said that it was mere error of proceedings by the District Registrar resulted in registration ? We are of the view that once it is accepted the District Registrar was persuaded to follow a wrong course as a result of fraud, such a fraud is not protected by Section 87. The Second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.

(3.) Appeal dismissed.