AJAY LOOTHRA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-REGISTRAR-GURGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Registrar's direction for registration of documents, the cause of action1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Registrar arrayed as the 1st respondent directing the registration of the sale deeds purported to have been executed by the 5th respondent Jagan Nath in the alleged capacity of power of attorney of the petitioners. The order is a composite one in its disposal of two appeals filed by the 3rd respondent Inderbir Singh Uppal, seeking for registration of properties covered under two sets of transactions, claiming to purchase properties of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under one transaction and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in another transaction. The direction by the Registrar is in respect of 8 sale deeds purported to transfer 57 kanals and 5 marlas of land. The order records a reason that the Sub Registrar had only assigned deed numbers for 6 documents and for remaining 2 documents, no number had been assigned and no reason has been given by the Sub Registrar as to why the sale deeds were cancelled.

(2.) Before the Registrar, it appears to have been contended that the appellant had not produced the income tax certificate at the time of registration of the sale deed and hence, sale deeds could not have been registered. The Registrar had dealt with that issue and held that it was the duty of the vendors to produce the income tax certificate and the registration could not have been put off by the failure to produce income tax certificate. He also reasoned that the Sub Registrar could not have acted on the objection of the owners of the property claiming that they had cancelled the power of attorney, since the termination of an agent's authority had been brought about only on 7.4.1999 after the document was presented for registration on 24.3.1999. According to him, in terms of section 208 of the Indian Contract Act, the revocation could not affect a transaction brought about earlier and the revocation could be effective only when it was communicated to the attorney. The Registrar observed that the owners of property arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had committed fraud on the purchasers and since the sale consideration had been paid by the purchasers to the power of attorney, the documents were required to be registered. In disposing of the appeals, the Registrar had ordered that the documents shall be registered in terms of Section 75 of the Indian Registration Act.

(3.) The impugned order had been passed on 17.04.2000 and by the time the writ petition was filed before this Court on 3.5.2000 and brought for orders on 4.5.2000, the registration had been effected on the same day. The Division Bench of this Court took notice of the registration and passed an order on 5.5.2000 that the purchasers shall not used the impugned registered documents in any judicial proceedings. This order has stood on from 5.5.2000 till the time of disposal of the writ petition.