TIRTHA NAND JHA Vs. SAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order of the District Sub-Registrar by which order it was directed that the sale deed said to have been executed by the petitioner be registered.

(2.) It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the scribe of the sale deed of Tirtha Nand Jha had, in collusion with Bhagwan Mandal, husband of opposite party 1, Srimati Sakuntala Devi, got the said sale deed executed and signed by the petitioner. . It is alleged that the petitioner had gone to the Sub-Registrar at Katihar for execution of five genuine sale deeds in favour of five different persons, and that along with these five genuine sale deeds the said scribe managed to get the petitioner to execute and sign the sale deed in question in favour of opposite party 1, Srimati Sakuntala Devi. It is said that the petitioner after having gone to the Sub Registrar at Katihar for presentation of the five genuine sale deeds returned home on the morning of 23-12-1953. Opposite party No. 1, it is alleged, presented the said deed for registration before the Sub Registrar at Katihar on 17-2-1954. The sale deed, however, was not registered as the Sub Registrar refused to register it on the ground of denial of the execution of the document by the petitioner. Against this order of the Sub Registrar, opposite party No. 1 filed an application before the District Sub Registrar at Purnea and the said District Sub Registrar, Mr. K.C. Sinha, after hearing the application ordered the registration of the sale deed in question, namely, the one in favour of Srimati Sakuntala Devi, opposite party No. 1, if presented before the Sub Registrar at Katihar for registration. It is alleged that the order of the District Sub Registrar was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as under Section 73, Registration Act, the District Registrar is alone empowered to entertain the application against the order of the Sub Registrar refusing to register a document on the ground of denial of the execution by the executant.

(3.) The only point urged before us is that the application before the District Sub Registrar was not maintainable and, therefore, that order of the District Sub Registrar in question was without jurisdiction and, therefore, it should be set aside.