GOPAL UPADHYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ quashing an order passed by the District Registrar, of Shahabad on 10-7-1954. By the said order, the learned District Registrar interfered with an order of the District. Sub-Registrar and directed the District Sub-Registrar, under the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Indian Registration Act, to register a particular document in the following circumstances.

(2.) One Nathuni Singh alias Chandrama Singh, opposite party No. 3 before us presented a sale deed stated to have been executed by one Gopal Upadhya, petitioner, before us, for registration to the District Sub-Registrar. Execution of the document was denied by the petitioner and the learned District Sub-Registrar to whom the document was presented for registration under Section 30(1) of the Registration Act, proceeded to hold an enquiry under Section 74 of Part 12, Registration Act. On holding such an enquiry the learned District Sub-Registrar was satisfied that the document had not been executed by the present petitioner and that the document was written out by the scribe on blank sheets of paper which contained the signature of the executant from before. On this finding the learned District Sub-Registrar refused registration of the document under the provisions of Section 76, Registration Act. Against this order of the learned District Sub-Registrar, an application was made to the learned district Registrar. The application purported to be an application under Section 73, Registration Act and was made by opposite party no. 3 namely, Nathuni Singh 'alias' Chandrama Singh. The learned District Registrar held that the learned District Sub-Registrar had no authority to hold an enquiry under Section 74 of part 12, Registration Act. The learned District Registrar, therefore, treated the order of the learned District Sub-Registrar as though it were an order under Section 71, Registration Act and accordingly he treated the application of opposite party No. 3 as an appeal under Section 72, Registration Act, and, on that basis, lie allowed the appeal and directed the District Sub-Registrar to register the document. The learned District Registrar purported Jo make the direction under Sub-section (2) of Section 72, Registration Act.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended before us that the order of the learned District Registrar was wholly without jurisdiction, and no appeal lay to the District Registrar from the order which the learned District Sub-Registrar had passed. In my opinion, this contention urged ton behalf of the petitioner is correct and the order of the learned District Registrar dated 10-7-1954, by which the learned District Registrar interfered with the order of the learned District Sub-Registrar is wholly without jurisdiction.