SHER SINGH Vs. ROSHANI DEVI ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order passed under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, declining to allow the petitioner to join in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act (for short, 'the Act') against the other respondents. In brief the background of the case is as follows.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 executed a sale-deed in favour of respondent No. 1 for the sale of 21 kanals and 8 marlas of land for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/-. This document, however, was not consequently registered by the Sub-Registrar. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the Registrar against the order of the Sub-Registrar declining to register the document. At the time of the hearing of this appeal, respondent No. 2 though admitted the execution of the document, yet the appeal was dismissed by the Registrar. This necessitated the filing of the suit by respondent No. 1 under Section 77 of the Act for a direction to the Sub-Registrar to register the sale-deed executed by respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the suit the present petitioner claiming himself to be a bona fide purchaser from respondent No. 2, vide sale-deed dated November 24, 1977, filed the present application for joining these proceedings. As already indicated this prayer of the petitioner was declined on the ground that in the suit under Section 77 of the Act, he cannot be considered to be either a necessary or a proper party. In this regard reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad v. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal and others, 1969 AIR(P&H) 57.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring to my notice even a single judgment wherein it has been held that in a suit under Section 77, of the Act, a person who claims himself to be a transferee from the original owner, is either a necessary or a proper party. As is apparent from a bare reading of Section 77, the scope of enquiry before the civil Court is very limited. The Court is concerned not with the validity but with the genuineness of the document sought to be registered that, is, whether the document has been executed by the person by whom it is alleged to have been executed. In such a suit all that is required to be shown by the plaintiff is that the document was executed by the alleged executant and the requirements of law as to presentation for registration in due time to the proper officer and in the manner generally prescribed by the Act have been complied with by the person presenting the document. Thus it is obvious that the parties to the document sought to be registered can be the only parties in the suit. Third person is not entitled to challenge the decision in such a suit in a collateral proceeding.