HARI RAM Vs. BALAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This and the connected petition have been made under Article 227 of the Constitution, The first respondent, Balak Ram. presented two documents of sale, which purported to have been executed by Hira. before the Sub-Registrar, Theog for registration. Hira had already died and the petitioners, who are his legal representatives, denied execution. Accordingly, on June 1, 1970 the Sub- Registrar, acting under Section 5 (3) of the Indian Registration Act. refused registration. In June, 1970. Balak Ram made two applications under Section 73 fl) of the Act before the Registrar in order to establish his right to Jiave the documents registered. An objection, was raised by the petitioners that the applications did not conform to Section 73 (2) inasmuch as they were not signed by Balak Ram and had not been verified in the manner required by law for the verification of plaints. It is contended that the defects were defects of substance and not merely formal and they could not be rectified subsequently. The objection was overruled by the Registrar by his order dated January 19, 1971 and he permitted Balak Ram to remove the defects observing that the removal of the defects would not be barred by limitation. The petitioners now apply under Article 227 of the Constitution for relief against that order.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel, for the parties. I am of opinion that the writ petition must fail. There is no dispute that the applications under Section 73 (1) were in fact made on behalf of Balak Ram and pursuant to instructions from him. When that is so. the mere omission of Balak Ram to sign the applications is of no moment. The ob-jection proceeds upon a pure technicality. The omission to verify the applications is also one which can be removed subsequently. It Is not shown that by giving Balak Bam an opportunity to remove those defects, any irreparable injury or damage has been caused to the petitioners. In Uttam Singh v. Ratan Devi. AIR 1924 Lah 28 a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court held that the mere omission to verify a petition moved under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act would not invalidate the petition. The learned Judges pointed out that when a plaint with defective verification or with no verification at all was filed in Court it could always be amended and the defect remedied, the defect being one merely of form and not one of substance. Reference was made to Order 6. Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 73 (2l of the Indian Registration Act it was observed, was identical in terms. Following the view taken in that case. It seems to me that the Registrar was right in proceeding as he did. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Magan Devi v. State Transport Tribunal, Lucknow, AIR 1964 All 19. In that case, the application for a stage carriage permit did not contain the declaration that the statements made in the application were correct and that the applicant agreed that the various terms mentioned in the application should be conditions of the permit issued to her. The Regional Transport Authority, notwithstanding those defects, made an order granting a permit to the applicant, but on appeal the State Transport Tribunal set aside the order. The Allahabad High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal because of the peculiar position obtaining under the Motor Vehicles Act which, the Court Pointed out. could not be compared with the position under the Code of Civil Procedure. Another case cited for the petitioners is Rev. G, Harish Chaplain v. Prem Nath. (1966) 68 Pun LR 16 where Dua. J. disapproved of an order of the Court below directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint in case he wanted certain documents to be admitted in evidence, and placed on the record. The learned Judge observed:

(3.) In my opinion, the course adopted by the Registrar was plainly right in law. The defects were such as could be removed by Balak Ram. and the Registrar acted within the bounds of his jurisdiction in allowing him an opportunity to remove those defects.