AWADESH KUMAR Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letter, patent appeal is directed against judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the order of the District Sub-Registrar, Gaya, directing compulsory registration of a sale deed under Sec. 73/74 of the Indian Registration Act.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that Rajendra Prasad Sharma, respondent No. 1 herein, executed a sale deed with respect to parcels of land situate in the districts of Gaya and Patna in favour of the appellants which was presented for registration at Jehanabad Sub-Registrar. He later backed out and did not appear to admit the execution before the registering authority. The Sub- Registrar, Jehanabad, in the circumstances, refused to register the deed. The appellants herein made an application under Sec. 73 of the Registration Act. A plea was taken on behalf of respondent No. 1 that he was minor on the date of execution of the sale deed, and, therefore, had no disposing capacity. The District Sub-Registrar framed three questions for decision, namely, (a) whether the opposite party i.e. respondent No. 1 herein had executed the sale deed in question after going through the contents of the deed, (b) whether the opposite party at the time of executing the sale deed was minor, and (c) whether the guardianship certificate issued by the District Judge, Patna, dated 22-9-95 in favour of Ram Naresh Singh (uncle of respondent No. 1) as guardian will have any effect on registration of the sale deed. The District Sub-Registrar examined witnesses and came to the conclusion that the respondent had executed the sale deed with full awareness of its contents. He, however, declined to answer the second question as, in his opinion, having regard to the nature of the proceeding under Sec. 73 of the Registration Act the question of minority could not be gone into. He observed in this connection that had the proceeding been under Sec. 72 of the Act, which provides for appeal against an order refusing to register document on any ground other than denial of execution, the question could have been decided. Having declined to answer the second question, he did not consider if worthwhile to examine the third question either as the same was inter-linked with the second question. However, in view of his finding on the first question to the effect that the respondent had executed the sale deed after having gone through the contents and with full awareness thereof he directed the registration of the sale deed under Sec. 75(1) of the Registration Act. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 1 by way of writ petition in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2114 of 1980.

(3.) The learned Single Judge in his judgment under appeal held that in view of certificate granted by the District Judge under Sec. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act and the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act and the provisions of Sec. 48 of that Act it was not open to the Registering authority to go behind the order of the District Judge about the minority of the respondent. He observed in this connection that "whenever question of minority of a person becomes involved, the respondent. He observed in this connection that "whenever question of minority of a person becomes involved, the restriction under Sec. 48 will placed a clog on all courts and authorities from taking a contrary view". He, accordingly, set aside the order of the District Sub- Registrar. The appellants have come Up in appeal.