SADHU SINGH Vs. RAMAWADH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order, dated the 14th September 1964, passed by the District Sub-Registrar of Arrah. setting aside the order of the Sub-Registrar of Jagdishpur, dated the 6th December 1962, and directing the registration of the certified copy of a sale-deed, dated the 22nd August 1962, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner and opposite parties 3 to 5 in favour of opposite parties 1 and 2.

(2.) The material facts are as follows. The petitioner and opposite parties 3 to 5 are cousins and are joint owners of 1.13 acres of land in villages Dumri and Mahraja situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registry office of Jagdishpur in the district of Shahabad. It was alleged that these persons agreed to sell the aforesaid land for Rs. 2,300 to opposite parties 1 and 2, and in pursuance of the agreement a sale-deed was also executed on the 22nd August 1962. As regards the payment of the consideration money, it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 1,340 would be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of exchange of receipts after registration and the balance of Rs. 960 would be paid by opposite parties 1 and 2 to some of the rehandars in respect of the land. In pursuance of this agreement the sale-deed after due execution was presented at Jagdishpur Sub-registry office on the 25th August, 1962, by Rambadan Singh, opposite party No. 3. But the registration was held up due to the failure on the part of the petitioner to appear before the Sub-registrar and admit the due execution of the same. The Sub-registrar kept the document with him for nearly four months and ultimately on the 26th December, 1962, refused to register the same purporting to act under Section 34 of the Registration Act, read with Rule 43 of the Registration Rules. The original document was then returned in the course on 14th January, 1963, to Sudama Singh, opposite party No. 5. Opposite parties 1 and 2 then filed an appeal before the District Sub-registrar. That officer held that the document was duly executed and that there was no ground for refusal to register the same. But as the original document was not produced before him by opposite party No. 5, though he was duly summoned to produce the same, he directed that a certified copy of the sale-deed should be duly registered. This certified copy had been granted to Sheopujan Singh (opposite party No. 2) by the Sub-registrar on the 9th January, 1963, and it was filed before the District Sub-registrar on the 18th December, 1963. In passing this order he relied on the instruction contained in letter No. 2482, dated the 8th September, 1961, issued by the Inspector General of Registration to all the District Registrars, which is as follows:

(3.) One of the important grounds taken up in the petition was the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the District Sub-Registrar in hear ing the appeal from the order of the Sub-Registrar of Jagdishpur refusing to register the document. This ground was rightly not pressed before us at the time of hearing. Though the order of the District Sub-registrar is described as an appellate order under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act, it will strictly come within the scope of Section 73 of that Act and not of Section 72. Section 72 applies only when refusal to register is made on any ground than denial of execution. Here, however, it was denial of execution by some of the alleged executants of the document that was responsible for the Sub-registrar's refusal to register the same. The appropriate section is, therefore, Section 73, and the order of the District Sub-registrar is strictly speaking not an order in appeal but "an order on an application" under Section 73 of the Act, Section 7(2) of the Act authorises the State Government to confer on a District Sub-registrar all the powers of a Registrar except the power to hear an appeal against his own order. Instruction No. 4 in Part I of Chapter IV of the Bihar Registration Manual, Volume II, shows that the power to hear an application under Section 73 of the Act has been delegated to the District Sub-registrars in the State of Bihar, Hence there is no want of jurisdiction in the order of the District Sub-registrar.