MAHALIRAM SINGHANIA Vs. UPENDRA NATH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four petitions arise out of the same proceeding relating to the registration of a deed of gift, dated 26-12-1957, alleged to have been executed by Paliram Singhania in favour of three of his sons, namely, (1) Mahaliram Singhania, (2) Bishwanath Singhania, and (3) Sitaram Singhania (hereinafter to be referred to as the donees). The points under consideration in all these cases are the same. They have, therefore, been heard together with the consent of the parties, and this judgment will govern all of them,

(2.) The short facts are these; On 3-3-1958, Paliram Singhania executed a deed of gift in respect of a house, bearing holding No. 72, in favour of his daughters, Kishuni Devi and Shanti Devi, and this deed of gift was registered on 4-3-1958 on the admission of execution by Paliram Singhania himself. On 18-3-1958, Paliram Singhania died leaving his eldest son, Ghanshyam Das Singhania, the other three sons, namely, Mahaliram Singhania, Biswanath Singhania and Sitaram Singhania, the donees, and the two daughters, Kishuni Devi and Shanti Devi. On 25-4-1958, the donees presented the deed of gift dated 26-12-1957 for registration before the Sub-Registrar. By that deed of gift Paliram Singhania purported to make a gift of his two houses, bearing holding Nos. 72 and 73, in favour of the donees. On that very day, the two daughters of Paliram, namely, Kishuni Devi and Shanti Devi, and his eldest son, Ghanshyam Das (hereinafter to be referred to as the objectors) filed an application before the Sub-Registrar objecting to the registration of the said deed of gift on the ground that the same had not been executed by Paliram, and that his signature on the document was a forged one. On 26-4-1958, the Sub-Registrar heard the objection, and the donees admitted the execution of the deed of gift by the donor, Paliram. The Sub-Registrar made an endorsement of admission of execution on the back of the document, but took no further steps, as required by law, to complete the registration of that document, and he handed over a receipt in regard to the presentation of the document to the donees. It appears that the District Sub-Registrar felt that the valuation given in the deed of gift was inaccurate and the properties had been under-valued in order to defraud the Government of proper stamp duty. He, therefore, referred the matter to the District Registrar for an inquiry in regard to the valuation matter by a Deputy Magistrate; and, after endorsing the admission made by the donees of the execution of the document, observed that the document had not been admitted to registration finally as it involved the question of alleged undervaluation, and passed an order postponing registration of the document pending disposal of the inquiry by a Deputy Magistrate in regard to the valuation matter.

(3.) Both the parties, namely, the donees and the objectors, felt aggrieved by the above decision of the District Sub-Registrar. The donees, therefore, presented separately three applications in this Court giving rise to Miscellaneous Judicial Case Nos. 341, 746 and 747 of 1958. The objectors also presented an application to this Court giving rise to Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 461 of 1958. In M. J. C. 341, 746 and 747, the District Sub-Registrar, the District Registrar and the State of Bihar are opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3. The objectors are opposite parties 4 to 6 in M. J. C. 341, but they are not parties in the other two cases, namely, M. J. C. 746 and 747. In M. J. C. 461, the District Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar are opposite parties 1 and 2, and the donees are opposite parties 3 to 5. Opposite Party No. 6 is the widow of Paliram Singhania.